Chron decries wasting of taxpayer money on Mosher Bible case
by Owen Courrèges · 11/29/2007 8:06 amYou’ve got to hand it to the Chronicle — no matter how absurd their position, they dig in like nobody’s business. Certainly, the Chronicle has not advocated the judicious use of taxpayer dollars. They continually support frivolous projects such as sports stadiums and light rail, taking money away that could be used for, say, more police.
And yet in spite of this record, the Chron now waves its smelly finger at the Harris County Commissioners Court for fighting a lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court over the propriety of the display of the Mosher Bible in front of the county courthouse. This one merits a substantial fisking:
In the case of the inappropriate and unconstitutional display of an open Bible outside the former Civil Courthouse on Fannin, Harris County Commissioners Court violated one of life’s most basic rules: When you find yourself in a hole you don’t want to be in, stop digging.
By foolishly and futilely appealing the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the commissioners tried to dig to China. As a result, the taxpayers are in the hole for what might be hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
The Chronicle has no ire for the plaintiffs for bringing this insipid case to begin with, of course. Just think about that for a moment. What you had here was a Bible in a case that belonged to William Mosher. It was placed there in 1956 in Mosher’s memory in recognition of his philanthropic work, which was largely driven by his religious beliefs.
Somebody saw that Bible, researched the fairly innocuous story of how the Bible came to be there, and yet was still so offended that they bothered to make a federal case of it. They convinced Judge Sim Lake — who, although a good jurist, reached the wrong result in this case — that the Bible was a “law respecting an establishment of religion” barred by the First Amendment as those words have been interpreted by more recent Supreme Court precedent.
And the plaintiffs moved for the county to pay their attorney’s fees. Ouch. Sim Lake granted the request.
Wait, and now it’s supposed to be the County that’s exclusively at fault here? They had the facts on their side. The monument wasn’t intended as an endorsement of Christianity, and I seriously doubt anybody who actually looked at the monument closely could have come away with that impression. Moreover, even granting that the monument could be considered suspect, the fact remains that I and many other attorneys completely disagree with existing Supreme Court precedent and its highly dubious view of the establishment clause. I am very pleased that the County worked to change it (which was not a fool’s errand, because the makeup of the Court has shifted in recent years).
County Judge Ed Emmett and Commissioner Steve Radack — imagine them as an American Gothic couple holding large shovels — just don’t get it. Both said they would like to display the monument and its Bible somewhere on county property. Emmett said some court rulings were just silly.
Would the county let other faith-based organizations display their holy writ on county property? If not, it would be guilty not only of promotion of one religion, but also discrimination against others.
I’m sure if a member of some other faith was as philanthropic and dedicated as William Mosher, the County would have considered such a display. In any case, that’s a purely theoretical question and had no bearing whatsoever on the case.
Moreover, I would note that the founding fathers themselves held Christian Mass in the Capitol building and had (and still have) a Christian chaplain for the Congress. The fact is that the First Amendment was never, ever intended to prevent the government from endorsing Christianity with various displays; rather, it was intended as a bulwark against the establishment of a state religion akin to the Anglican Church in Britain. Only very recent Supreme Court precedent — from the Warren Court forward — endorses the stupid, unreasonable view that the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment is so restrictive. It’s wrong and it has caused a major rift between people of faith and the Supreme Court. That’s far more unhealthy and divisive than a Bible in a box outside of a courthouse.
What purpose would the displays serve? What would be the point of inviting such controversy?
The members of Commissioners Court, with their perverse persistence in wanting to violate the First Amendment’s prohibition against government establishment of religion, are the ones who are being silly, at great expense. For those who start out in the wrong, persistence is no virtue.
Please. Unless you’ve been asleep for the past forty years, you know the controversy is there. The Commissioners Court didn’t create the controversy; it merely brought it to the surface, which in my opinion is where it belongs. All the Commissioners Court was violating is the anti-religious, errant precedent of a Court that shifted too far to the left, and is just now coming back to the center (and hopefully to the right, with the next appointment).
It’s the Chronicle that’s wrong here. That’s why they don’t even try to argue the merits in this or any other editorial.
Filed Under Front Page ·
Comments
44 Responses to “Chron decries wasting of taxpayer money on Mosher Bible case”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
“For those who start out in the wrong, persistence is no virtue.”
Note the irony….. They don’t get it do they?
They have absolutley no clue or they are so agenda driven they could care less.
I have said it in another thread and will say it again.
I am Jewish however every time I walked into the courthouse I brushed my fingers across that display. It was there to honor a man who did good and it brought peace and comfort to many.
The Commissioners Court was correct in fighting the ACLU and the chrummical is a waste of paper and ink.
Nice work, Owen.
I am neither Christian nor Jew, though I was raised Christian, and I never had a problem with that display per se. I think the lawsuit against it was senseless. However, I can envision an action that might have happpened (but did not) that might have changed my mind: a request to put a display from another religion right next to the Bible display. At that point the county would be faced with either accepting all such requests, or removing the Bible display. At that point, a true offense would have occurred. If the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were smart, they would have gone down that road instead.
But that never happened. I don’t observe Christmas, but nativity scenes and Santa Claus do not bother me, either. I say live and let live, as long as I am allowed to live on equal terms.
If you don’t start fighting the “PC” clowns somewhere, they will take over everything and we won’t have things like “Christmas” anymore. You won’t be able to pay tribute to anybody for fear that the monument you created is not “PC”. So the “HELLary” with the “PC Wackos” or else it will be the death of us, yet!!!!
The politically correct and most effective way to stop this “crap” is easy and simple.
Have our congress critters pass one simple piece of legislation. He who sues pays his own legal expenses. The ACLU is a ridiculous business that makes a fortune by suing the American government, people, laws etc and when they win We, the American tax payers pay their legal bill.
By the time this “bible” fight and it’s appeals are over it will have cost the tax payers between a quarter to a half a mill. Change the law so we, the tax payers do not have to pay the cost of the ACLU and the ridiculous lawsuits will stop.
ACLU= American Criminal Lawyers Union.
Ghost Rider
I someone wanted to place another memorial, exactly the same as the one that contained the bible, with a Quaran to honor a man that did as much good as this one, then I do not see the problem.
Ghost Rider,
First of all, I don’t think religious displays need be an “all or nothing” affair. The County can choose to display a Bible because of our country’s long and enduring Christian heritage, and there’s nothing offensive or discriminatory about that.
Secondly — and this comports more with existing Supreme Court precedent — the County doesn’t have to put out another display when the original display was intended exclusively for the recognition of an individual, i.e. William Mosher.
Dov, the only problem with that is how do individuals then sue corporations, etc. You do not want to make it a situation where only those with money can sue.
Well, Owen, let’s see, this small memorial sat only four blocks from the Houston Chronicle offices for fifty years. Where were these guardians of our constitutional purity all that time ? Why were they not crusading for decades for the removal of this stain on our civic pride ? I’m sure this is the great legacy Jesse Jones envisioned for his newspaper. He must be spinning in his grave.
duhmoose,
I doubt disallowing awards of attorneys’ fees would have such an impact. Attorneys’ fees are only awared a select group of cases — in ordinary lawsuits they are not permitted. Because they are so uncommon, they also usually aren’t the deciding factor in choosing whether or not to bring a lawsuit.
I think you may be thinking of “loser pays,” which would indeed discourage lawsuits, but is that really a bad thing?
Owen the first paragragh of your article is spot on.They don’t mind the government spending our money when it is something they want. That is not being an unbiased souce of information any way you look at it.Why can’t they just report a story without the opinionated view and let the reader decide what he thinks of the situaion instead of telling you what you should think of the situation. If it were an OP-Ed piece that is one thing but not in just a news column. I don’t know which section this was printed in but that is my view nevertheless.
Establishment Clause of the Constitution:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
It makes no reference prohibiting religion or religious expression - as a matter of fact, it can be argued that it encourages expression of religion. Furthermore the only prohibition is at a Federal level. There is nothing in this clause that prohibits states, counties, cities, schools, etc from promoting religion or a certain religion or even establishing a recognized state religion within it’s own constitution, although I cannot imagine that happening. You can look at the founding fathers, the capitol, and their traditions to know thaty they never intended religion to be quashed. Only to prohibit Congress from passing a law establishing a national religion. This has gone too far, and we must fight for the right to have displays that contain Bibles or the Ten Commandments etc. Also, in law there should be something that would allow the display because of longevity. After 50 years, one must assume it is constitutional.
120 duhmoose
You make the law applicable on a case by case basis and also on an “amount of suits filed” There has to be a way to stop the ACLU. How about let the Judge and or Jury decide whether or not to pay the Plaintiffs legal fees.
To have to pay a quarter to a half mill (estimated) over a display involving a bible ?
Which reminds me. Everyone needs to go out. Buy a religious Christmas card and send it to your local ACLU office. They have to open it because they don’t know if there is a donation or support in it. And be sure to add a P.S. ” May the lord bless you and keep you”
I read an article yesterday about Kay Staley receiving the “Activist of the Year” award from the Austin Atheist people where she says that the monument bothered her but she did not know what to do about it (which I find strange since she is an attorney) but when she met Randall Kallinen he was looking for someone to bring on a case just as this one. Who is Randall Kallinen? He is the current head of the Houston ACLU. Enter Staley’s attorney, Ayesha Khan (Muslim?) who is the top litagator for the D.C. based Americans for Seperation of Church and State. Not very hard to figure out what’s going on here when you start connecting the dots.
I would like to know how the determination was that Mr. Mosher’s Bible represented one religion. Which one? Baptists? Methodists? Church of Christ? It doens’t represent my religion. It was a King James Version and I am a Catholic that uses a Catholic Bible, not a King James Version. Should I sue all places that exhibit the King James version of the Bible since it is not representative of my religion?
If being forced to look at the monument because it was on public ground violates Ms. Staley’s civil rights under the 14th Amendment, then what about my ears? If I live in an area where there is a Islamic mosque that blasts their call to prayer over loud speakers from the minaret five times a day and I am not deaf, does that violate my civil rights with the sound invading my hearing space or my being able to hear it inside the privacy of my own home?
Until the ACLU starts taking on Muslim mosques that invade my privacy by forcing me to listen to a loud speaker five times a day (as they are trying to force the residents of Katy to do) then it my mind, it is pretty clear that the ACLU only has a problem with all things Christian.
Frankly, I have always had a problem with those who argue that displaying the Bible is not a “promotion” or “expression” of religion. I think that argument is disengenuous, and is used by people out of simple expediency to try and convince a court not to find a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Of course displaying the Bible promotes religion - specifically Christianity (and the Old Testament Judaism).
But I also agree that this shouldn’t make it unconstitutional. The Court long ago went too far in finding First Amendment violations in these traditional expressions of faith, and we can only pray (or can we?) that the Roberts Court will undo some of those holdings.
retire05, Baptists, Methodists, Church of Christ and Catholics are all members of the same religion.
RickG,
But in this case, there was a secular purpose — to honor William Mosher. That was the intent, to recognize the man by displaying what was (I assume) one of his most prized possessions. I don’t think it advances religion the same way, say, displays of the Ten Commandments do.
Agreed on everything else; I just think the Mosher monument wasn’t about advancing Christianity.
#17 RickG
Agreed.
How hard would it be for the SCOTUS to separate the First Amendment into two sections, establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof. One would be about a law requiring people to practice specific religious activities, and the second would be barring specific religious activities.
I have a Torah on my desk that has been there for a year. On the console of my Suburban 2 years. In the trunk of My Goldwing. They are open to viewing by anyone around. Am I promoting Judaism ? Hardly.
How long til the ACLU files suit on the Supreme Court ? They open their sessions with a prayer. They have moses and the 10 Commandments on their wall. The SCOTUS needs to wake up and we the American people need to take America back.
Self
moses should have been Moses
If you actually look at the religion clause of the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and then look at the other writings of our founding fathers from the same period, you will quickly determine that in this clause “Religion” means a particular sect or denomination.
While they were certainly aware of other religious faiths they understood that faith and morality were inextricably linked. For instance, in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, one of the first acts of the new Congress the 3rd article says: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Doesn’t sound like the words of men who wanted to divorce religion from the public or government square does it?
19 Owen
Whatever the intent, displying the Bible in such a fashion certain has the “effect” of promoting religion. I don’t think professed lack of intent saves it from a First Amendment challenge.
Of course, at the time, no one would have anticipated a First Amendment challenge.
A privately funded monument, placed on public ground to honor a man who did good works in the very community where the monument is place is not honoring any religion by using his personal “guide” for the reasons he did all those good works.
If a Muslim did good works in Houston due to the directions he gleened from the Koran, and then his family place a monument to him in Herman Park which included that very book that caused him to do good works, do you really think the ACLU would go after that monument? I doubt it.
Can you not declare that causing me to listen to an Islamic call to prayer five times a day because of the power of the loud speakers to drive that sound into my home a violation of my civil rights?
Where are those law suits?
25 Rick G
Whether that (promotion) was the intent or not, I don’t see the problem. Read the amendment - it doesn’t prohibit promotion, it prohibits establishment - two completely different things. And, it only prohibits establishment on a federal level, not state or local level.
Hi All;
What purpose would the displays serve? What would be the point of inviting such controversy?
My response to the commical…..
“If we will not be governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants.” –Wm. Penn
Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties; write its precepts on your hearts and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this Book we are indebted for the progress made, and to this we must look as our guide in the future. - Ulysses S. Grant
“Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ But, conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.”
– Martin Luther King Jr.
In a Memorial Day Address, MAY 31, 1923, President Calvin Coolidge said: “Settlers came here from mixed motives…Generally defined, they were seeking a broader freedom. They were intent upon establishing a Christian commonwealth in accordance to the principle of self government…It has been said that God sifted the nations that He might send choice grain into the wilderness.”
People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.
Have a good day all.
The real solution to the current mess of judicial interpretation is found in the amendment itself. Pay close attention to the first word:
It says Congress shall make no law. Not Harris County Commissioner’s Court. Not the city of Houston. Not the state of Texas. Sadly, and with the aide of an unwise interpretation of subsequent amendment powers, our courts apply explicit constitutional restraints on the powers of the federal Congress as if they uniformly apply to all aspects and levels of government all the way down to the local MUD board. Yet this interpretation is plainly and irrefutably at odds with the explicit intent of the founders, as expressed by John Marshall in Barron v. Mayor and City of Baltimore:
29 Phil_M:
You are absolutely right! (I never thought I’d say that
)
Its articles like this one that has made the Com ie cal irrelevent.
I no longer take that rag - and do not know anyone who does
Phil_M, I think you are trying to over simplify Constitutional Law. Court precedent has applied Constitutional boundaries on State and Local governing bodies. Therefore your argument is moot in the court. If you were going to argue that the Constitution only applies to the Federal government except when it explicitly states otherwise, I believe you are looking at overturning a TON of court decisions.
RickG,
I disagree. It would be akin to the government creating a design for a public building facade with a massive cross in it, while not noticing at the time that the cross was there or that it might be viewed as Christian imagery. The idea that it impermissibly establishes religion becomes much more tenuous when there is no intent.
Also, the recent Ten Commandments decisions focused heavily on the intent behind the creation of the monuments, if I recall correctly.
Phil,
That depends on whether or not you support the doctrine of incorporation. I think it’s pretty clear than the drafters and those who voted on the 14th Amendment intended to incorporate the first eight amendments to the Constitution against the states. Accordingly, it’s at least a reasonable interpretation, if not the most reasonable interpretation, to say that the “Congress shall make no law…” now phrase effectively means “No government shall make any law…”
Again, though — SCOTUS has ruined everything by using selective incorporation, essentially a doctrine of “whatever rights we like, we incorporate.” I think it’s more of a zero sum game.
And the comical wonders why it is loosing readership, has to lay off people, and will soon be a memory.
Phil/Owen - No matter - If a county government places a monument with a Bible in it, or even a big flashing neon sign with music, flames, and jumbo-trons saying “WE THINK CHRISTIANITY IS GREAT AND WISH FOR ALL TO COME TO CHRIST!!” (you can substitute the religion and savior of your choice here), even THAT is not passing a law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
32 -
My entire point, duhmoose, is that those later cases are bad precedents and that Barron v. Baltimore was the correct ruling in the eyes of the founders. So yes, I do want to reverse the precedents you refer to.
34 -
Owen - you’re correct about how the incorporation doctrine is selectively applied out of convenience to the court. I’m just saying that I’d take it a step further and ditch the entire doctrine itself.
I’m disinclined to give much credence to the intent of those who voted on the 14th amendment simply because it is probably the most clumsily constructed amendment or clause in the entire constitution. It’s poorly written, vague, attempts to combine generic platitudes on rights with obscure specific provisions such as the confederate war debts, and written in a way that is generally oblivious to how its provisions might interact with the rest of the constitution.
That said, there’s a reasonable body of historical evidence suggesting that suggests it was intended only to “incorporate” the most basic rights of contract, suit, and property ownership - e.g. this:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=675&Itemid=99999999
What’s certain is that the incorporation doctrine does not emerge naturally from the text of the amendment itself. Whereas Barron v. Baltimore’s rule is derived from the plain and explicit text of the Constitution, the incorporation doctrine had to be interpretively extracted over several decades from a vague and badly written clause that does not lend itself naturally to the conclusions our courts have reached about “incorporation.”
Admittedly, this leaves the current courtroom conceptualization of “constitutional law” in a very very very bad place, and probably one that’s irreparible. Nevertheless, we can state that the doctrine of “incorporation” is drastically at odds with the intent of the people who wrote the Bill of Rights it purports to apply. If one is to truly follow an originalist interpretation, shouldn’t their intentions carry at least the weight of the later and lesser figures who purportedly intended to modify the Bill of Rights’ scope (though they fell far short of explicitly doing so). Cause personally, I’ll take the opinions of George Mason, James Madison, and even John Marshall over a venom-spewing scoundrel like Henry Wilson on any day.
To put it another way, the “correct” understanding of the “incorporation” segment of the 14th amendment, IMHO, is limited strictly to its own language and nothing more. States are prohibited by this clause of denying “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Taken in its own words, that means the justicable functions of contract and trade, entered into at liberty and subject to matters of law before the court.
In this sense, the proper construction of that clause is probably something closer to Lochner v. New York (where a state law impeded Lochner’s liberty of contract) or Coppage v. Kansas or Tyson v. Banton than anything in the subsequent “incorporation”-based 1st amendment cases.
Phil,
I still disagree. The notion of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights was prominently debated while the 14th Amendment was going through Congress. Rep. John Bingham, who was the primary drafter of Section 1 of the 14th, unequivocally expressed his view that the amendment was designed to lead to incorporation. I can’t imagine that his interpretation wasn’t widely known; he stated it outright from the moment the text was submitted.
In this respect, I generally agree with the historical interpretation contained in Justice Black’s dissent from Adamson v. California on the matter of incorporation:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0332_0046_ZD.html
Then again, I’m more concerns with original meaning than textualism. I’ll readily concede that the language of the 14th is confusing and muddled, but that’s all the more reason why both the legislatures and Congress would have paid attention to the ongoing debate over its ratification. I somehow doubt that the Congress and the state legislatures were unaware of its connection to the Bill of Rights.
While there may be other reasonable interpretations, I just happen to think the best historical evidence weighs in favor of complete incorporation of the first eight amendments. We may well have been better off sticking with the conceptions of the founders rather than those of the radical Republicans of the late 1860’s and 1870’s, but, for better or worse, they amended the Constitution.
Owen - In normal cases that would be true. But the 14th Amendment’s ratification process was a convoluted mess in itself. In its initial presentation to the states, 10 out of 11 southern states refused it. Three additional northern states, New Jersey, Oregon, and Ohio, ratified it in 1867 then passed measures rescinding their ratifications in 1868. The southern states all eventually ratified not out of an understanding of its author’s purported motive but simply to fill a prerequisite of the Reconstruction Act provisions for ending their post civil war military governments.
The federal government even had difficulty figuring out if it and when it had been ratified, causing a brief showdown between the legislative and executive branches. Traditionally ratification is certified by the Secretary of State, per a law adopted in 1818. Recognizing the rescinded ratifications of Ohio and New Jersey, the Johnson Administration would only commit to a “conditional ratification” pending the rescinsions being overturned. The next day Congress unilaterally declared it would not recognize Ohio’s rescinsion and declared the amendment ratified. The crisis was averted a couple days later when Alabama’s reconstruction governor reported the amendment ratified, it having been previously rejected in the prior legislature.
Needless to say, in circumstances like that it is highly unlikely there was anything even remotely resembling a consensus of motive for the amendment among the states that ratified it. Instead the process bears witness to widespread confusion, political expediency, and even possible impropriety among the officials involved. That doesn’t change the fact that it was ratified, but it does cast a long shadow of doubt upon the clarity and purpose of what they percieved themselves to be ratifying.
Owen - There’s also substantial evidence that the Congresses and Supreme Court immediately following the 14th amendment’s 1868 ratification did not consider it to have “incorporated” the bill of rights into state law.
In 1875 the House of Representatives clearly demonstrated that the 14th amendment did not “incorporate” the states into establishment clause. They recognized a subsequent amendment was needed to do this and adopted the following by a 2/3rds vote:
It failed to get 2/3rds of the senate though.
The Supreme Court also explicitly rejected the broad view of “incorporation” doctrine several times in the decades that followed the ratification. As early as 1873 - only 5 years removed from ratification, the Slaughterhouse Cases ruling gave credence to a narrow understanding of the “due process” rights conveyed in the amendment.
Walker v. Sauvinet (1875) similarly rejected broad “incorporation”:
Hurtado v. California (1884) specifically asked “of what additional restrictions upon the legislative policy of the States has been imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” From Hurtado:
Leeper v. Texas (1891) held that “by the Fourteenth Amendment the powers of states in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, except that no state can deprive particular persons, or classes of persons, of equal and impartial justice under the law. That law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice is due process, and when secured by the law of the state the constitutional requirement is satisfied.”
The same principle was upheld again and again by the Supreme Court until the early 20th century e.g. Maxwell v. Dow (1900) and Twining v. New Jersey (1908).
When Lochner came around, the narrow “incorporation” view it extended, namely the liberty of contract and its judicial enforcement, was a natural extension of what the court had held about the 14th amendment since the time of its ratification.
To look at Black’s 1947 argument:
Because of Twining v. New Jersey holding otherwise, the first claim - that Barron was intentionally overturned by Congress - hinges on the second claim - that the court had never truly examined the historical purpose of the 14th amendment. Yet Black’s entire premise in this regard is faulty. He glosses over with disregard - perhaps intentionally - virtually every component of the prior cases from Slaughterhouse to Twining that touches directly upon the purposes of the 14th amendment, and presents the straw man claim that they were decided without consideration or knowledge of a supposed intent to overturn Barron.
This is absurd on its face though - almost all of the major anti-incorporation rulings of the late 19th and early 20th century were written with full knowledge of their accompanying pro-incorporation dissents by John Marshall Harlan. Many of the justices in this era were politically active at the time the 14th amendment itself was adopted, and thus knew its background far better than anything Hugo Black could obtain by reading a few carefully selected passages from the Congressional Globe.
Samuel Miller, author of the Slaughterhouse ruling, was already on the Supreme Court when the 14th Amendment was adopted. So were Nathan Clifford and David Davis of the majority. They were no strangers to what was going on in Washington around them. Their early rulings on the 14th amendment are as much a testimony to the common understanding of its intent at the time of its adoption as anything that came out of the congressional debates.
One more case of note - Twitchell v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1869). In a unanimous opinion by Salmon Chase on a case heard less than a year after the 14th amendment’s ratification, the Supreme Court directly endorsed Barron v. Baltimore, stating it was still the law of the land: