Sometimes I think that much of the animosity between voters
supporting differing parties comes down to a lack of understanding of how our
government works.
I was reminded of this earlier this week in an exchange with
a person whose views differ from mine. The
exchange began following the announcement by one of my senators, a Democrat,
that he would vote against the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch for Supreme
Court. After noting that his reasons
(the Russian investigation) were merely justifications for the no vote he had
always planned to cast and that his vote was simply his knee-jerk assertion of
the party line, I commented that Gorsuch was one of the most qualified jurists
ever nominated for the position.
I of course realize this is my opinion and some could and do
disagree with that position; I have no problem with that disagreement if it is
based on an understanding of the duties of a judge and a realistic examination
of Gorsuch’s record. However, the
response to my comment from a Democrat was to take issue with my comment that
Gorsuch was “one of the most qualified”:
the individual asserted that because an opinion he wrote was recently
overturned by the Supreme Court, it followed that Gorsuch was “not qualified.”
That simply shows that individual’s total ignorance of: how the federal court system works; what the
job of a federal appellate judge is; the role of precedent in a judge’s
decision making; the fact that there is more than one federal appeals circuit and
that sometimes these circuits are split on an issue; that federal appellate
judges must follow the precedent in their circuit; that when there is a circuit
split it is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to take up the issue and when it
resolves the circuit split it is in essence disagreeing with or overturning the
circuits with which its decision does not agree; that such resolution (and
effective disagreement with one side of the split) does not mean that judges
who sat within the disagreed with circuit and followed precedent there were
necessarily wrong or unqualified as judges; that the disagreed with judge may
very well have been properly executing his or her responsibility to follow precedent
within the circuit. Moreover, while the
opinion that the individual in my exchange referred to was unanimous, many Supreme
Court decisions are not; using that individual’s logic, all the judges in the
minority in a non-unanimous decision would be unqualified. That is certainly not the case.
These are things that I learned in an 8th grade
civics class in public school. Sadly,
that was many years ago; such classes don’t exist today. So, the lack of understanding of how the
courts or the rest of our government work leads people to make idiotic
statements that they believe to be true, not because they are idiots but
because they have never learned the basics of our government. I suspect that the individual in my exchange
assumed that because the opinion Gorsuch wrote was overturned that meant that Gorsuch
was wrong and therefore unqualified.
That reasoning shows nothing more than a total lack of understanding of our
judicial system.
Our conversation ended with that individual’s comment that
Gorsuch was not qualified. I saw no
point in continuing when it was clear that before we could have a further or
productive conversation the conversant would need a course in the basics of our
court system. I suspect, however, that
similar conversations around the country devolve into shouting matches where
one person or group is yelling “Yes, qualified” and the other is yelling “No,
not qualified” with neither side understanding what are the qualifications for a
good judge. This is not the discussion
needed in this country.
We see people counting up how many times Judge Gorsuch’s
opinions have found for or against a position or type of entity that they
either like or dislike, demonstrating their total lack of understanding that a
judge must follow the law, even if that judge does not like the result to which
that law leads. That is why a judge’s
personal position on an issue is not really relevant to his or her abilities as a
judge. A civics class would have made it clear
that it is the legislative branch of government that makes the law; the judges interpret
and apply the existing law while the executive branch enforces it.
Without these basic understandings about our government, it
makes sense that many people become (unjustifiably) angry when they think that
one branch of government or someone within that branch is not performing as
they should. But, often, they are performing
just fine; it’s just that the critic doesn’t understand what the role is and expects
something different than what is actually not only expected but also required of the
position. What is especially troubling
is the lack of understanding of the interaction between the three branches and
the fact that any one branch is not in absolute control; indeed, the three
branches create the checks and balances so essential to our democracy.
There is a necessary balancing always involved in the
governance of this nation and that balancing also requires compromise. So, the person yelling “Yes” or the person
yelling “No” needs to understand that these absolutes in and of themselves are
not the way to resolve issues. Rather what
is required is a depth of understanding and an examination of all aspects of
the issue and how the issue and its ramifications fit into our form of democracy. That is how we can stop the yelling. And, that understanding must begin with an
understanding of the basics of how our form of government works – the lessons
that one would learn in a proper civics class.
No comments:
Post a Comment