BCT Editorial – 4/12/05

This page was last updated on April 14, 2005.

Under attack; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 12, 2005.

If the author had to pay every time he used “right-wing,” this editorial would have put a dent in his wallet.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“First, they came for the judges...

“The right-wing’s assault on the American judicial system must be stopped before the branch of government that protects our sacred fire of liberty is gutted.”

[RWC] Does the Times really believe the judicial branch is the only “branch of government that protects our sacred fire of liberty?” Isn’t this the same branch that found both slavery and segregation were constitutional? The courts also found no problem with denying blacks and women the right to vote, errors corrected by Congress and the states via the 15^th and 19^th Amendments.

When the rights of black school children in Arkansas were being violated, it was the executive branch via President Eisenhower’s order that protected the children’s rights.

Don’t get me wrong; the judicial branch is as important as the executive and legislative branches. That said, I give the executive and legislative branches a little nod because we elect our leaders and representatives.

“The right-wing is furious with the way in which the judicial system handled the Terri Schiavo case and is using her as a springboard to assault democracy in America.”

[RWC] Regardless of political persuasion, we all should be concerned that federal courts ignored a federal law (S.686). As a reminder, the law directed federal courts to review the Terri Schiavo case from the beginning. The law did not direct an outcome, only a complete review of the facts. Instead, all the courts did was review legal procedure. Dissenting judges noted the clear language of the law and Congress’ clear intent.

“Bashing the judiciary is all the rage on the American right, and not-so-thinly veiled threats are the order of the day.

“There’s something pathetically whiny in their complaints, though.

“To start with, the vast majority of the judges in the federal court system have been appointed by Republican presidents, and only two of the nine members of the Supreme Court were appointed by a Democratic president.

“In other words, the federal judiciary is a GOP bailiwick.”

[RWC] I don’t believe the author realizes what he wrote. He just told us conservatives are acting on principle. Why? Because they are not blindly protecting their “bailiwick.” Regardless of the judge’s political orientation or the politics of the person who appointed him, we need judges who interpret and follow the law, not ignore or make law.

As I’ve written before, all groups have their fair share of scalawags and allegedly conservative judges are no exception.

“And lest we forget, the elected Florida judge who was at the center of the controversy has been described as a conservative Republican who used to belong to a Baptist church until he was asked to leave because of his decisions in the Schiavo case.

“These right-wing zealots also do not represent the will of the majority of Americans.”

[RWC] I don’t know the particulars and I know nothing of Baptist rules, but it would seem wrong to ask a congregation member to leave because of his court decisions.

“Right-wingers last week were talking up a Zogby International poll, conducted on behalf of the Christian Defense Coalition, which found that 80 percent of likely voters said that a disabled person who is not terminally ill or in a coma, and not being kept alive by life support, should not, in the absence of a written directive to the contrary, be denied food and water.”

[RWC] The author forgot to mention previous polls rigged to conclude a majority of Americans felt Terri Schiavo should die.

“This response is important and should not be ignored. As we wrote in a previous editorial, the Schiavo case raised serious questions about what defines a disability and who determines that status.

“But those surveyed were more equally divided on issues that touched on the Schiavo case as it related to the judiciary. Those polled were asked to agree or disagree that:

“* It is proper for the federal government to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge’s order: 44 percent agree, 43 percent disagree and 13 percent not sure.”

[RWC] I believe this question was poorly worded because it provides no context. If I had no reason to believe the state judge made factual or procedural errors, I would disagree with the statement. If I had reason to believe the judge made an error, I would agree.

“* The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to the disabled: 42 percent agree, 48 percent disagree and 10 percent not sure.”

[RWC] I have to admit I don’t understand the results especially given the judicial branch’s less than stellar record at protecting Constitutional rights. If the representative branch of government hadn’t intervened, for how much longer would blacks and women have been denied the right to vote?

“* Elected officials should intervene to protect a disabled person’s right to live if there is conflicting testimony concerning removing a feeding tube: 38 percent agree, 54 percent disagree and 8 percent not sure.

[RWC] I believe this question also has a context problem.

You probably won’t be surprised to learn there were some other judiciary-related questions the editorial conveniently omitted. Here are a couple of them.

“The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to minorities: 57% agree, 33% disagree, 10% not sure.” Don’t we treat the disabled as a minority group?

“Hearsay be allowed as evidence in the case of determining if a feeding tube should be removed: 31% agree, 57% disagree, 12% not sure.” Compare this to the “conflicting testimony” question above. This is why I believe the “conflicting testimony” question has a context problem. If you recall, the judge relied on hearsay evidence from Terri Schiavo’s husband that she would want to die.

“An independent judiciary is absolutely essential if our basic freedoms are to be preserved. If the courts are stripped of their constitutional role, the legislative and executive branches - even those that came to power by the thinnest of majorities - would be free to impose their ideological agenda on the nation.”

[RWC] This is an incredible paragraph. The U.S. Constitution did not create an “independent judiciary.” Indeed, the potential power of the courts worried the Founding Fathers.

First, Article III of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress authority over federal courts. In fact, Congress built the federal court system and provides the rules under which the federal courts operate. The editorial would have us believe Congress has no authority over the federal court system. When he refers to the “constitutional role” of the courts, it seems clear to me the editorial’s author either hasn’t read the Constitution or ignored what it said. That probably would qualify him as a judicial nominee by Democrats. <g>

The Supreme Court is a partial exception to the above in that the Constitution built the Supreme Court. That said, the executive and legislative branches exert control via judicial appointments and they have the power to impeach Supreme Court justices. You may be surprised to learn the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the authority to determine what is constitutional or not. The Court gave itself that responsibility and the executive and legislative branches didn’t reign in the Court.

Second, the paragraph talks about the potential for the “legislative and executive branches … free to impose their ideological agenda on the nation.” That’s hysterical coming from a liberal source. Liberals constantly tell us the Constitution should be considered a “living document” to be interpreted according to societal trends. This belief is what leads judges to “interpret” the law in general – and the Constitution specifically – through the prism of their personal policy preferences.

In a recent public debate with Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Stephen Breyer said he looks for guidance from extra-constitutional sources. For example, when the Supreme Court ruled capital punishment for minors was unconstitutional, the majority opinion cited international law and unratified treaties.

“First, they came for the judges...”

[RWC] I hate to be the one to break the news, but judges are no better than the rest of us. They are human and there are good judges and bad judges. Judges don’t belong on a pedestal any more than members of the executive and legislative branches of government.