|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Print The judicial system in this country has taken some serious hits recently, and I'm not sure the incoming salvos represent anything more than political opportunism. Yes, I am against so-called "judicial activism" and I believe that judges should fairly interpret the law, not make new law. On the other hand, while I do not agree with every judicial decision that is handed down, I recognize that our system of justice is the fairest and most transparent system in the world. We should celebrate what works in the system, seek to correct abuses when they occur, and not malign our system of checks and balances between the branches of government when it seems politically expedient to do so. The Terri Schiavo case was a heart-wrenching family drama that really had no business being plastered on the front page of every newspaper in the land. This was a tough case with no happy ending regardless of which side you took in the dispute. For the record, I believe it was a terrible tragedy that Terri was basically starved to death (which was the wish of her husband). It is hard to argue though that this case did not get a fair hearing in the court systems of Florida. It seems that Terri's parents exhausted every possible legal avenue to wrest control of her care and destiny from the hands of her husband. Their legal maneuvers spanned many years, with numerous hearings before numerous judges. I sided with the parents on this case (based upon my firm belief that we should always err on the side of life). The judicial system, however, sided with the husband, that he was accurately reflecting her wishes not to be kept alive via the feeding tube. There would have been no dispute had Ms. Schiavo left a living will that specified that she should not be kept alive when all hope for her recovery was gone. But in the absence of such a testament, the dispute in court arose over who spoke on behalf of the severely brain-damaged woman, her parents or her husband. Many social conservatives aligned themselves with the parents. What if the situation was reversed, however, and it had been the husband who wanted to keep his wife alive and the parents who were advocating the removal of the feeding tube? No doubt the social conservatives would have switched allegiance and sided with the husband. Understandably, most of us want to preserve life at all costs. The law, however, as interpreted in this case, would have not switched sides—the husband would have still won the right to speak for his wife and Terri would still be alive. An interesting symbol of the judicial system is a statue of a blindfolded lady holding scales in one hand and a sword in the other. The statue, which originated in ancient Greek and Roman times, is most popularly referred to as Lady Justice. This statue adorns courthouses around the world symbolizing that justice is blind, not subject to outside influence. Even when I disagree with judicial rulings, I must remember that to force a judge or court to rule according to my bias or predilection would be an infringement upon the impartiality and independence of the judiciary. I don't want a judge to rule in a case based upon which side can display a more persuasive show of popular support via mass protests, media campaigns, or endorsements from political leaders. I want judges to be oblivious to these outside forces and simply follow the law. If a court issues a ruling that contradicts my position, or even my moral sensibilities, that action does not give me license to disregard the law in a show of defiance. Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore took that course of action when a federal court ordered him to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court building in 2003. Moore was subsequently removed from office for this very public display of defying the law. While I disagreed with the federal court's order to remove the Ten Commandments, I agreed with the judicial ethics panel that removed Judge Moore from office. I am sure that Mr. Moore is a very decent and religious man and I appreciate all of his legal efforts to defend the presence of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building. When he made a decision to defy a federal court order, however, I felt that Moore crossed the line of what is acceptable behavior in our society. Our society will disintegrate into chaos if the citizenry can pick and choose which laws they want to observe. So while I may be tempted to call for an all-out war against the judicial system when decisions are handed down that cross my political and/or religious views, a smarter course of action is to strengthen my voice in the other branches of government, the executive and legislative branches, who in turn appoint and confirm nominees to judicial posts. The recent stalemate in Congress over confirming many of President Bush's judicial appointments is a case in point. Senators who refuse even to allow an up-or-down vote on qualified judges appointed by the President should be held accountable by their constituents. We are a country governed by laws and those laws are made by representatives of the people. If those laws are not reflective of the wishes of society, then it is our duty to elect representatives who will more accurately reflect the will of the people. The electoral process is the proper way to change society, not the wholesale trashing of the judicial system.
ninetyandnine.com © 2005, Phillip Hampton ----- Phillip Hampton is an Executive Editor of ninetyandnine.com. |
|
|
