On May 22, 2005 the Kansas City Star ran a Midwest Voices Column by a contributor named Vicki Palatas. I could not have been in greater disagreement with her, and I wrote a letter to the editor. On May 29th, the Star saw fit to print my response, but heavily edited. So I am posting here the link to her column, along with my response in it's entirety, and the letter to the editor that the Star printed.
Click Here to get to the KC Star online, (then feed in the information to access the "Midwest Voices" column from May 22) for the column written by Ms. Palatas in which she starts by defending Tom DeLay, and finishes by calling for an end to an independent judiciary, the column to which I felt moved and morally obligated to respond. Here is the letter to the editor as it appeared:
Independent Judiciary
"They have flaunted their independent role long enough." That final, parting shot taken at the judiciary by Vicki Palatas in her latest paranoid screed (5/22, Midwest Voices, "Democrats Skewer Constitution and Republicans") sent chills up my spine, and I can not let it pass.
An independent (nonpolitical) judiciary is the bedrock of our republic. That a few conservatives would destroy the village to save it leaves me shaking my head and checking to make certain my traveling papers are in order, because I am not going to live in the Gilead that some conservatives envision.
Was she so upset a few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot? When Clinton's nominees were denied a hearing?
The reason this republic has not merely survived, but thrived and prospered, has been, in large part, [due to] the system of checks and balances that were written into the Constitution, An independent judiciary is the linchpin.
I view lifetime judicial appointments the same way I view tenure on college campuses. They are necessary to keep independent thought a part of the process. Both allow individuals to speak up on unpopular issues without fear of losing their livelihood in a political firestorm.
T. Booth
Kansas City
Here now for your editorial consumption and consideration is the article as it was written, in it's entirety:
"They have flaunted their independent role long enough." That final, parting shot taken at the judiciary by Vicki Palatas in her latest paranoid screed on the editorial page of the KC Star (5/22, "Democrats Skewer Constitution and Republicans") sent chills up and down my spine, and I can not let it pass.
An independent (non-political) judiciary is the bedrock of our republic, and that a few conservatives would "destroy the village to save it" leaves me shaking my head, and checking to make certain my traveling papers are in order, because I am not going to live in the Gilead that some conservatives envision.
An independent (non-political) judiciary is the bedrock of our republic, and that a few conservatives would "destroy the village to save it" leaves me shaking my head, and checking to make certain my traveling papers are in order, because I am not going to live in the Gilead that some conservatives envision.
Was she so upset a few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot? When Clinton's nominees were denied a hearing? With 100 vacancies in the federal judiciary, and 76 names submitted into nomination, only 18 were acted on. By the fall of 1997, less than a year after he had won re-election decisively, fifty-two of Clinton's nominees had been denied the due process of an up or down vote, compared to only ten of George Bush's nominees this far into his second term. Once the Republicans had a substantial majority, they removed the "blue slip" option that had been employed against the Clinton nominees, most famously Judge Ronnie White, blocked by John Ashcroft, lest it be used again, this time to block the nominees sent to the hill by Bush-43.
The reason this republic has not merely survived, but thrived and prospered, in spite of being midwifed by an armed revolt that divided the colonists in the 18th century, a civil war that decimated half the country in the 19th century, and periods of often violent civil unrest that divided this nation in the 20th century, it has been due in large part to the system of checks and balances that were written into the constitution, and an independent judiciary is the linchpin.
I view lifetime judicial appointments the same way I view tenure on college campuses. They are necessary to keep independent thought a part of the process. I may not agree with what a tenured professor, or a judge for that matter, has to say, but I agree with their right to say things that make people think, and that challenge preconceived notions. Both allow individual people to speak out on unpopular issues without fear of losing ones livelihood in a political firestorm. I am certainly no fan of the Klan, but I will defend until my dying day their right to free speech, no matter how abhorrent I find their views. If they lose their rights, mine may be next. I have yet to agree with a single tenet put forth by Ms. Palatas since she began appearing on [your] pages, but I do not want to live in a society that denies her the right to express that opinion in print, no matter how vehemently I might disagree with her, or she with me.
I view lifetime judicial appointments the same way I view tenure on college campuses. They are necessary to keep independent thought a part of the process. I may not agree with what a tenured professor, or a judge for that matter, has to say, but I agree with their right to say things that make people think, and that challenge preconceived notions. Both allow individual people to speak out on unpopular issues without fear of losing ones livelihood in a political firestorm. I am certainly no fan of the Klan, but I will defend until my dying day their right to free speech, no matter how abhorrent I find their views. If they lose their rights, mine may be next. I have yet to agree with a single tenet put forth by Ms. Palatas since she began appearing on [your] pages, but I do not want to live in a society that denies her the right to express that opinion in print, no matter how vehemently I might disagree with her, or she with me.
Let us consider Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black for a moment. You may recall from history class (or personal recollection) that as a young man, he donned a white robe and scared black people. Then as an older man, he donned a black robe and scared the bejeezus out of a whole lot of white people. That is the kind of personal growth and evolution of thought that I want in a jurist, and that simply would not be possible in a political judicial climate.
Social mores and values are fluid. Social change often happens at the behest of the judiciary. The founders could not foresee a need for a constitutional interpretation of telecommunications issues, or the need to become involved in issues of professional sports. This is where the concept of the Constitution as a "living document" comes from. Does anyone think we would have what passes for desegregated schools without Brown v Board of Education? Of course not! Almost three decades after that ruling became the law of the land, the KCMO school district was placed under the control of the federal courts because the district was not in compliance, and the courts retained that control for nearly 20 more years.
Social mores and values are fluid. Social change often happens at the behest of the judiciary. The founders could not foresee a need for a constitutional interpretation of telecommunications issues, or the need to become involved in issues of professional sports. This is where the concept of the Constitution as a "living document" comes from. Does anyone think we would have what passes for desegregated schools without Brown v Board of Education? Of course not! Almost three decades after that ruling became the law of the land, the KCMO school district was placed under the control of the federal courts because the district was not in compliance, and the courts retained that control for nearly 20 more years.
I live in the real world. I know that if the hard-righters had their way, we would be living in the America of the 1890's, the era of the robber barons. There would be no labor unions, no minimum wage, no corporate accountability, no Social Security. Conversely, if the extreme fringe of the left were to seize power, we would get universal health care, fully-funded educations for all, stringent environmental regulations, fully funded social programs, and the fiscal costs that would accompany these otherwise desirable ends. Neither scenario sounds like paradise to me.
The judiciary does a pretty good job of striking a balance (Lady Justice is, after all holding a scale in her hand.) There is enough working at cross-purposes in this country already. Let's keep the judiciary independent and above the fray. And remember that we are the only country to successfully practice our form of government and have it survive for more than half a century. It has failed everywhere else it has been tried, but then again, when other nations attempted to replicate our system, they did so without an independent judiciary. I see a connection between our successful republic and our independent judiciary. Let's not risk what we have in pursuit of a blatant power-grab that ultimately serves no one, but instead panders to a few single-issue voters.
