Bogus Gold

One might be inclined to sympathize with the troubled local media entity, the Star Tribune, what with its well publicized financial troubles lately. Why they've even apparently resorted to outsourcing their time-honored tradition of dishonestly smearing Republican candidates to their Letters to the Editor writers.

I suppose if I was an investor looking at the struggling Strib's bottom line, I too might see the advantages of this strategy: no need to pay for the writing; no need to accurately cite any sources; and the paper can still prominently feature the commentary as its own "Letter of the Day."

See how easy it is?

John McCain said in a speech last week that, as president, he would appoint federal judges who favored overturning Roe vs. Wade. He also said he thinks that federal judges should be responsive to the will of the people.

Wow, that's a pretty major assertion. I mean, the Roe v. Wade controversy has been THE major judicial appointment sticking point on both sides of the aisle for over three decades now. And not only that, apparently John McCain also turned his back on a generation of conservative judicial philosophy that explicitly condemns judges who rule according to their own notion regarding the "will of the people" rather than the plain wording of our laws? Double-wow! Major blockbuster! I wonder why the Star Tribune failed to take note of it in the only news story they carried regarding this speech.

I suppose they might be forgiven for reasons a bit more relevant than budget cuts. Reasons like: John McCain said no such thing. Really. Not even close. You can read the entire transcript of the speech in question (or watch the video of it) if you'd like.

There is no mention of Roe vs. Wade in the speech whatsoever. The thrust of the speech is devoted to respecting the restrained role of the judiciary. How could one possibly take that speech and make the asserrtion that it had anything to due with judges ruling based on the "will of the people" rather than in respect to the law? Apparently from this section of the speech, which I'll present in context:

The executive, legislative, and judicial branches are often wary of one another's excesses, and they should be. They seek to keep each other within bounds, and they are supposed to. And though you wouldn't always know it from watching the day-to-day affairs of modern Washington, the framers knew exactly what they were doing, and the system of checks and balances rarely disappoints.

There is one great exception in our day, however, and that is the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power. For decades now, some federal judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges. With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people. And the only remedy available to any of us is to find, nominate, and confirm better judges.

That is the ONLY mention of the phrase "will of the people" in the entire speech. Feel free to fact check that assertion. Unlike the Star Tribune, I provided a link to the source so you don't have to take my word for it.

As anyone above moron-level intellect can observe, the phrase "the will of the people" above is not presented as the standard by which judges are supposed to be deciding cases. It is presented as a further criticism of judges who are ruling on matters that don't belong in front of the judiciary in the first place. The phrase McCain used describing this improper judicial behavior is: "... federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically."

McCain's point in a nutshell: If I think the speed limit on my street should be lowered to 20 mph because there are lots of kids playing in it, I shouldn't go to a judge but rather to the relevant elected officials. That's how the system is set up. But if I DO go a a judge over it, a proper judge should tell me he's got no authority to change that kind of thing. However some judges ignore that basic issue and issue rulings over these kind of issues where the constitution does not give them proper authority. And John McCain says this is wrong and he doesn't want to appoint those kind of judges. Hearing that point, where does our Star Tribune "Letter of the Day" run with it?

Send that man back to Constitution school! It's hard to believe he's served so long and still hasn't learned the basic division of responsibilities among the three branches of the U.S. government.

Yeah, especially hard to believe when he called our this basic division explicitly in the preceding paragraph. One might even begin to conclude that John McCain very obviously and demonstrably knows about this distinction, and therefore someone asserting the contrary is serving some particular agenda above and beyond telling the truth.

Our outsourced editorialist continues...

The judiciary is the one branch of our government that is responsible to the Constitution, the law and to justice. It is the only branch that protects the minority from the potential tyranny of the majority.

Okay, that's just stupid and has nothing to do with John McCain so let me dispense with it myself. Every branch of government is responsible to the Constitution. Every branch of our government has its authority and the limits of its powers enumerated therein. And every branch of government has a role in protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority because that's the basic distinction between a Republic, which is what our Constitution established, and a pure democracy, which is little better than mob rule.

So... We'll now go back to our letter writer's dishonest dissembling of McCain's remarks.

If, perchance, judicial justice matches the will of the people, it's a nice coincidence. But judges should never base their decisions on what the people say they want. And the selection of judges should be based on their ability to know the law and to administer justice fairly. Their selection should not be based on any pre-judging of cases that might come before them.

Shame on McCain!

Gosh. One thinks our letter writer might agree with the fellow who said this:

Federal courts are charged with applying the Constitution and laws of our country to each case at hand. There is great honor in this responsibility, and honor is the first thing to go when courts abuse their power. The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self-restraint, but this authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to make law instead of apply it. A court is hardly competent to check the abuses of other branches of government when it cannot even control itself.

One Justice of the Court remarked in a recent opinion that he was basing a conclusion on "my own experience," even though that conclusion found no support in the Constitution, or in applicable statutes, or in the record of the case in front of him. Such candor from the bench is rare and even commendable. But it was not exactly news that the Court had taken to setting aside the facts and the Constitution in its review of cases, and especially in politically charged cases. Often, political causes are brought before the courts that could not succeed by democratic means, and some federal judges are eager to oblige. Politicians sometimes contribute to the problem as well, abdicating responsibility and letting the courts make the tough decisions for them. One abuse of judicial authority inspires more. One act of raw judicial power invites others. And the result, over many years, has been a series of judicial opinions and edicts w andering farther and farther from the clear meanings of the Constitution, and from the clear limits of judicial power that the Constitution defines.

Sometimes the expressed will of the voters is disregarded by federal judges, as in a 2005 case concerning an aggravated murder in the State of Missouri. As you might recall, the case inspired a Supreme Court opinion that left posterity with a lengthy discourse on international law, the constitutions of other nations, the meaning of life, and "evolving standards of decency." These meditations were in the tradition of "penumbras," "emanations," and other airy constructs the Court has employed over the years as poor substitutes for clear and rigorous constitutional reasoning. The effect of that ruling in the Missouri case was familiar too. When it finally came to the point, the result was to reduce the penalty, disregard our Constitution, and brush off the standards of the people themselves and their elected representatives.

Well... perhaps not. Because that all comes from the same speech which our letter writer came away from concluding McCain wants to appoint judges exactly like the ones he took the time to explicitly call out and condemn.

It's quite clear from the speech that McCain's reference to the "will of the people" is expressed as his respect for the laws properly enacted by their representatives. This is hardly an unusual position for a long term senator of either party. It's also quite clear that he is condemning the behavior of judges who take it upon themselves to defy the proper limits of their authority AND the will of the people as expressed by the legislation legally enacted by their representatives in order to advance some personal agenda.

There's probably some shame called for here. But it doesn't belong with John McCain. It belongs with the letter writer who was either too stupid or too dishonest to tell the truth about John McCain's position on the judiciary, and especially to the Star Tribune which not only printed the unsourced accusation, but chose to feature it as its "Letter of the Day."