Saturday, October 29, 2005
Thinking About Miers And Jury Duty
Pretty much anybody that cares has already read Hugh Hewitt's NYTimes piece of the Miers nomination. Hugh lists a number of reasons about why the right's approach here was wrong. The primary damage he contends is to the "adivse and consent process" and potentially to Republican party hopes for the future.
I want to add one other thought to that list based on my ugly jury duty experiences of this week. It was obvious in the jury deliberations I participated in that people grossly misunderstood what courts should and should not do, that courts are about the application of the law, not making it.
The opposition to Miers ended up lining up behind some speeches and things that said she might not stand in the right place on affirmative action and a few other important issues. But it was about issues, not the law.
The Miers debate drives a further wedge between the proper constitutional role of the court -- to apply the law -- and the publicly perceived role, "to create justice."
First time I was ever involved in litigation personally was huge. It involved millions of dollars, public officials, corruption, lots of stuff. I was one of 95 plantiffs and I was the plantiff pointman with our attorneys. When it came time to depose the specific public official in question, I wanted him on a platter, I wanted his head. I wanted it on public record that he had abused his station for personal gain and render him unelectable for the foreseeable future. That, I thought was justice
My lawyer explained it to me. He told me how litigation is not about justice - it's about the law, that's all.
It is clear to me that before we can truly "fix" the courts, we have got to fix the public debate. I have become convinced that most conservatives don't really want a constructionist SCOTUS appointment, they want a "right-winger." That makes us as guilty as the left. See here's the thing, Roe v Wade is bad law. A liberal judge, that is committed to constuctionism would be forced to overturn it. The sooner all of us learn that, the better off we will be.
I want to add one other thought to that list based on my ugly jury duty experiences of this week. It was obvious in the jury deliberations I participated in that people grossly misunderstood what courts should and should not do, that courts are about the application of the law, not making it.
The opposition to Miers ended up lining up behind some speeches and things that said she might not stand in the right place on affirmative action and a few other important issues. But it was about issues, not the law.
The Miers debate drives a further wedge between the proper constitutional role of the court -- to apply the law -- and the publicly perceived role, "to create justice."
First time I was ever involved in litigation personally was huge. It involved millions of dollars, public officials, corruption, lots of stuff. I was one of 95 plantiffs and I was the plantiff pointman with our attorneys. When it came time to depose the specific public official in question, I wanted him on a platter, I wanted his head. I wanted it on public record that he had abused his station for personal gain and render him unelectable for the foreseeable future. That, I thought was justice
My lawyer explained it to me. He told me how litigation is not about justice - it's about the law, that's all.
It is clear to me that before we can truly "fix" the courts, we have got to fix the public debate. I have become convinced that most conservatives don't really want a constructionist SCOTUS appointment, they want a "right-winger." That makes us as guilty as the left. See here's the thing, Roe v Wade is bad law. A liberal judge, that is committed to constuctionism would be forced to overturn it. The sooner all of us learn that, the better off we will be.
