Commentary:

Rhetoric, appearances, and unintended outcomes

In the wake of the Schiavo matter, there are many on the far-right-wing who are making some statements that could reasonably be interpreted as beyond the pale.

For example, the remarks made in the Senate by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX):

I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have.

(source - The Washington Post)

The remarks by Senator Cornyn could be an expression of concern, not an encouragement of action against judges, but the backpedaling that followed gave less credence to the benign reading. As Glenn Reynolds (no liberal activist he) noted, "Though if there are no links, why did he raise the subject?"

Ann Althouse comments:

It is really a shame how little people understand of the reasons judges decide cases the way they do. DeLay and Cornyn, like many others, signal to the public to think that the judges are simply out of control and the cases are inexplicable as the serious work of deeply thoughtful persons steeped in the legal tradition. It wouldn't be wise just to assume that judges are unerring oracles of law, but to leap to the opposite conclusion and decide they are frauds is even more foolish. And for a public figure even to hint at violence as a solution is completely unacceptable.

Then, in a recent report on the NPR program All Things Considered, Representative Steve King (R-IA) threatened to cut the budgets of any federal courts that did not rule according to what Congress desired. (note, link is to a web page that allows you to listen to the streaming audio)

That sounds like the beginnings of a full-scale assault on the independence of the judicial branch of government. When coupled with the infamous remark of Tom DeLay, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," which could be referring to answering to God, given the constituency he is playing to, the sum is not comforting.

Pennywit points to an article in The Washington Post for what he terms "A Quote to Qonsider: Satan in Black Robes":

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

Those in power should tread carefully, however, for the majority of the citizens are noticing this rhetoric of apocalypse and taking it seriously.

The far-right-wing is in danger of being perceived this way:

Aren't we fighting to spread democracy and combat dictatorships of all kinds, including religious ones like the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan?

Are we in danger of acquiring characteristics of those we are fighting?

A mirror is a handy thing to use on occasion.

Could the judicial system in the US stand to be re-examined? Yes, it could be and should be at several levels, but that re-examination should be taken seriously, with much thought and real debate (not the Bush style of "my way or the highway") devoted towards it before any action is taken.

Otherwise, we could suffer from the curse of unintended outcomes as noted by Jane Galt in a post on the evolution of marriage in society at Asymmetrical Information. She also pointed out an observation by G.K. Chesterton:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

We all have to live together, so there is a larger responsibility than pandering to a single constituency or changing the rules to suit those in power.