Recently judges in Cook County Illinois received letters from an organization with an ultraistic sounding name. Inside the envelope was a letter explaining the purpose of the letter and the goals of the organization. Also in the envelope was a draft of a pledge for the judges to sign showing their commitment to rule in accordance with the organization’s purpose. The pledge wasn’t to follow the law but to rule in furtherance of the group’s agenda. It was reminiscent of Grover Norquist and his “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” While Norquist targets legislators to sign his pledge to adhere to his vision of tax laws, the letters the judges received fall into a darker and unethical area. Judges cannot prejudge issues that may come before them. Also, this organization is a partisan group pushing a social agenda while trying to enlist members of the judiciary to “their side.” If the group thought it through, any judge signing such a pledge would have to recuse themselves from any case before them where the issue was in controversy. Any judge signing a pledge demonstrating a predisposition on an issue that may appear before them would most likely face an ethical inquiry. This attempted intrusion into our independent judiciary is improper. Few appellate and supreme court cases are decided by a unanimous decision. In this case, the response of the judges should be unanimous. Just say no.
Incivility and Rhetoric
Black lives matter. Blue lives matter. All lives matter. In today’s hysterical climate of rhetoric each of these three simple statements are landmines buried on the path to civil engagement. Black lives matter was a statement which evolved into an organization against the killing of innocent African Americans at the hands of police. In response, Blue Lives Matter was created to honor police officers killed in the line of duty. This created an either or proposition. If you believed Black Lives Matter, that meant you were anti-police. Conversely, if you supported Blue Lives Matter, you were racist. Enter All Lives Matter which stood for the proposition that all human life is important. Somehow, this also was unacceptable to many. Let’s take a step back here for a moment. Nobody can argue that killing innocent people has a political benefit. Police officers overwhelmingly become police officers because they believe that they can help people. No police officer wants to shoot an innocent person. Sometimes, horrible circumstances unfolding in a matter of seconds lead to horrible outcomes. The response to tragic mistakes must be an acknowledgement that mistakes happen. Supporting the police does not make somebody a racist. One can support police while still requiring police to act in a professional manner. Attacking All Lives Matter supporters as being fence sitters is flat out wrong. The three statements are all correct. The political connotations connected to these statements has become a symbol of our inability to have a conversation with each other. You can’t have a conversation when nobody is listening. Support the police while demanding improvements to prevent innocent people from being killed because all lives do matter. Don’t hide behind the rhetoric, step up and engage in a civil manner to improve how we protect society. Is that too much to ask?
Participation Trophies
We live in a dramatically different world than previous generations. The “Greatest Generation” fought a war to save the world. Boys of 18, 19 and 20 were drafted and sent to war. They heroically served and came home to unprecedented growth and prosperity. American families found work and were able to chase or sustain their American Dream. Kennedy famously asked what we were willing to do for our country. Today, many Americans ask what the country can do for them. Where do we stand? What are our priorities? With cuts to the military budget, could we make health care and higher education affordable to the masses? Does it make sense to give the uber wealthy tax relief at the expense of the middle class? If you’re pro-life, what are you willing to tolerate to attempt to outlaw abortion in the United States? Is it fair to excuse all college debt? What about all of the families that struggled to pay for their children’s education? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to create a program to convert the individual’s debt to zero or no interest loans and help the students pay off their debts without the crushing effect of high interest loans? We have three co-equal branches of government. The driving reason for this was to create checks on ourselves. The courts are to protect the citizens from abuses from the legislative or executive branches. Currently the executive branch has been directing their employees to disregard subpoenas issued by the legislative branch. Ultimately, the judicial branch will be required to determine if the subpoenas will be enforced. If the judiciary issues an order and one of the branches doesn’t comply with the order, we will be at crisis. The founding fathers anticipated elected officials that would seek to overstep but they never anticipated a generation of crybabies that don’t think that the rules should apply to them. If the judiciary is assailed when the opinion goes against you but praised when you prevail, you demean the credibility of the court. We are not a nation of us versus them. We are a nation of laws. Time for the citizens to provide leadership to our elected officials and embrace the courts and other institutions that has led the United States to be a moral leader in the world community. We cannot make everybody happy with every ruling. Judges are to fairly interpret law without bias or agenda. We need judges to follow their oaths and people to accept the outcome. Perhaps the challenge to our generation is not to fight a war to save the world but to battle to save our nation.