EDITORIAL: Who Will Judge The Judges?
EDITORIAL: WHO WILL JUDGE THE JUDGES?
By D.S. Mitchell
Turtles All The Way Down
According to absurdist and other folks more clever than I, there is no inherent meaning to anything. Not that there’s no meaning, that would be nihilism, just that all things are arbitrary at their core. As famed genius Bertrand Russell put it, while addressing the issue of infinite regress, it is ‘turtles all the way down.’ An odd phrase based on the metaphor of the world sitting on the back of elephants, which in turn stood on the back of a turtle. Fans of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series of novels will likely recognize the concept.
The Price of Tea In China?
What does this have to do with the Supreme Court? Trust me, I’m getting there. The idea of ‘turtles all the way down’ also applies to society and the application of authority there in. Leaders, officers, and elites are not born. At least, supposedly, not anymore. Every position of power is designated by the people who constitute society. In a very real way the exercise of authority is ‘people all the way down.’ Humans chosen by other humans to hold power over them. In the context of a participatory democracy those humans are the elected officials.
The Faroe Islands
Even semi-autonomous entities such as the Faroe Islands, officially part of the Kingdom of Denmark, have their own head of government, called a First Minister, elected from the population. Rule by consent one of the few viable ways of doing governance in the modern social context. The problem comes when this is forgotten, either by the ‘authorities,’ or the populace. What are meant to be servants of the social order becoming elites able to abuse it.
Somewhere Between
A key example of this distinction can be found in the legal system at nearly every level. The current issues with policing, for example, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the job. The police are, at their most essential level, blue-collar civil servants with a mandate somewhere between fire-fighters and soldiers. Some tilt more one way or the other but this is the essential balance when things are going right. It is when they go wrong that the fit tends to hit the shan.
Who Will Judge the Judges?
It is when we get to the top of the legal system that things can get a bit thorny. Judges are, by and large, seen as more reputable and trust worthy than almost any other authority. Even those with well-founded issues concerning politicians, police and lawyers, tend to be more deferential when it comes to judges. This is partly because no one can just decide to become a judge. While there are some requirements, it is markedly easier to become a cop, an attorney or a politician. The position of judge only attained after decades of success as a lawyer, or making the Federalist Society appointment list. Most attorney’s working their entire lives never get close to being appointed to the bench, or making Mitch McConnell’s court packing short list.
Straight Faced
A judgeship is a position of prestige that is seen as being earned. That fact alone allows judges to claim to be non-political with a straight face. That said, some still abuse their position by forwarding their personal beliefs in their decisions; the Ten Commandments hung behind their bench something of a clue, particularly on abortion cases. The current political environment is toxic in the United States. The conservative makeup of the judges on the Supreme Court has come under fresh examination as they show themselves to be out of step with the majority of Americans.
Goodwill Tours
On a television screen near you is the now constant din of accusations of political bias by the John Robert’s Supreme Court. Over the last week a number of the justices have felt compelled to defend the court and it’s current conservative political leanings. When a cavalcade the Supreme Court justices go on an organized offensive hitting all the cable news shows in full force to claim they are non-partisan, you can bet your cupcakes they are what they deny.
A Nod And A Wink
It’s hard to claim the current Supreme Court is either non-partisan or ethical. Two sitting justices have been credibly accused of sex crimes. Sexual harassment of Anita Hill by Clarence Thomas; and sexual assault, by beer loving Brett Kavanaugh of Christine Blasey Ford.
There’s More
Joining those two rabble rousers on the court is right-wing anti-abortionist Amy Coney Barrett nominated to replace liberal Ruth Ginsberg by Donald Trump in the last hours of his twice impeached presidency. Another of the barely masked ultra-right conservatives is Sam Alito. Alito famously broke all precedence by mouthing “not true” to President Obama’s criticism of the court’s 5-4 ruling on Citizens United. Serious questions continue to swirl around Justice Kennedy’s retirement and the reported dark money behind that retirement. Not to mention the behind the scene political activities of the justice’s wives, most notably the wife of Clarence Thomas. This Supreme Court has feet of clay.
An Organized Plan
The Supreme Court is not defined by the number of justices on it. The idea to expand the court to 15 makes sense. The current situation with 9 justices has failed for several reasons. The primary reason being that the Republican Party has spend nearly two decades centering there political efforts and money to remake the U.S. courts. Mitch McConnell has been the primary ally in that effort while Majority Leader of the Senate.
Too Far From The Center
This power grab strategy is on its way to completely reshape the justice system unless they are stopped. Although the judges who sit on the bench are mere frail mortals, who put their robes on one arm at a time, their decisions effect millions of citizens. When the court’s decisions are too far removed from the desires of the majority of the country there will be pressure to bring the court in alignment with the country’s changing values and that is what you are seeing today. 70% of Americans see Roe v Wade as settled law. Abortion in the United States has been legal for 50 years. Overturning “settled law” and disrupting the social order is not a role any of these justices should want to be a part of.
Which Brings Me To
Roe v Wade is in front of the Supreme Court as I write this piece. In oral argument on Wednesday, 11/24/21 Justice Sonia Sotomayor attached the word “stench” to the Supreme Court and its hearing of the Mississippi abortion case. The fiery Justice observed that states were passing ever-stricter abortion laws, explicitly inspired by the court’s new conservative majority: “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible.” I think she could have used the term political hacks to describe the current court makeup and only a rare American would disagree.
Put A Light On It
Sotomayor continued her query of the Mississippi Solicitor General, “How is your interest anything but a religious view? I just think you’re dissimulating when you say that any ruling here wouldn’t have an effect on those previous (Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage, sexual privacy or contraceptive access) decisions.” Sotomayor chose the word stench carefully and deliberately. Do not forget she was not only addressing the actors in the courtroom, but the nation, in a live-streaming telecast. That deliberately chosen word, stench, likely irritated several of her colleagues, but the question is a necessary one in this period where we are confronted with the danger of an ultra (alt)-right Supreme Court.
https://www.calamitypolitics.com/2017/11/12/trump-moves-quickly-reshape-appeals-courts/
