James M. Redwine

Gavel Gamut

It’s Just A Number

by Leave a Comment

An ABC News/Washington Post Poll taken Sunday, May 07, 2023 of likely voters in the 2024 Presidential election had 68% of Americans saying Joe Biden is too old to be president next term. The same poll says only 44% think Donald Trump could be too old to serve. Biden is now 80 and Trump is now 76.

Joe Biden is claimed to have a fetish about sniffing the hair of women who are not his wife. Trump is alleged to have sexually assaulted several women to whom he was not married. If the American public’s fascination with sexual activity by characters on TV, in movies and books is considered in the choosing of our political leaders, we can postulate there may be a virility factor in play in choosing between our current and former president.

Apparently, the four-year difference in what will be two octogenarian relics by the end of the next term is of material importance to most voters. Neither old guy is the John F. Kennedy sex symbol he may see himself to be but the public appears to prefer its senility a little more virile, at least by reputation. Of course, it is possible neither Biden nor Trump will be on the ballot in 2024 as some dark horse may yet rush in to take all the perks of the presidency.

Of course, sexuality is only one element of a candidate’s character. We should examine the policies and performance of both Biden and Trump. In that regard, some like Trump’s stance on immigration and some like Biden’s. The same is true on the economy, cultural issues and international relations among many other issues. That is why we have elections and campaigns. But just as the coronation of King Charles III seemed to find the media concentrating on which crowns and robes Charles and Camilla donned as well as which handbag Kate carried as opposed to the substance of Charles’ vision for Great Britain’s future, it will not surprise any of us if the national media miss all the policy differences any of the candidates may have as the media focuses on the titillation of each person’s peccadilloes. Of course, the reason the media will do this is because that is what most of us are interested in. Policy is just so common.

Superannuated lotharios may be past their prime but they are more interesting than policy differences. As for me, Gentle Reader, for personal reasons, I choose to believe either Joey or Donnie or some other codger or even a 35-year-old could serve okay if the only consideration is age. Now whether we happen upon anyone who should lead this great country for the years 2025-2028, well, I must leave that lucky guess to each of you and the fickle folly of fate.

 

The Scarlet Bills

by Leave a Comment

Congress is demanding a code of ethics for the U.S. Supreme Court. So is the national news media. Congress and the media may not see eye to eye on much but they do agree that the Judicial Branch should be controlled by the Legislative Branch. It appears the ideology of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has infiltrated the American Garden of Eden with a poisoned pome and Congress is champing to chomp.

Congress teaching ethics to the Supreme Court is like Helen of Troy teaching matrimonial loyalty to Hamlet’s mother. If Congress were medical advice providers we might say, “First heal yourselves.” Be that as it may, there is little doubt the Supreme Court could use some ethical lessons. However, as a separate and equal branch of our three-branch democratic republic, I prefer the courts remain independent even if they sometimes teeter on a fulcrum between questionable personal behavior and unquestioned legerdemain. Such cases as Dred Scott in which the one-time slave holder, Chief Justice Roger Taney who did not recuse himself, decided the Negro Dred Scott had no rights that America’s white society was bound by law to recognize come to mind.

No, Congress should not be looking for the log in the eyes of the Supreme Court but should be initiating a Constitutional amendment that would ensure America’s citizens, not a few highly partisan politicians, would have the choice as to who and for what term judges would serve. I do not know, Gentle Reader, if you have read my numerous columns on electing judges to one fairly short term. I only know for sure that Peg read them because I refused to comply with her many varied domestic demands until she did. However, if by some chance you did read them you know my preference is a truly democratic judicial selection process.

Non-partisan elections of competing, qualified judicial candidates for one 10-year term and life-time pensions are my suggestion. Advice on ethics for anyone from our Congress rings hollow.

Whose Ox?

by Leave a Comment

Intractable problems such as judicial ethics and separation of powers are often intractable because we attempt to apply an inapplicable solution to them. If we notice one of our vehicle tires with a nail in it continues to lose air no matter how many times we air it up, it is time to remove the tire and remove the nail.

The United States Supreme Court’s image is not being denigrated by CNN, MSNBC and most other news outlets because its justices and their families receive emoluments but because some groups do not like some of the decisions of some justices. Politics, not ethics is the petard that is being raised to demand Supreme Court justices decide cases the “right” way or else.

But politics, not ethics is the proper tool to address judicial ethical issues. Our Constitution already has remedies for controlling judicial behavior. Article I, Section 9 contains the Emoluments Clause and Article I of the Constitution sets forth the procedure for removing government officials for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. And Article III provides federal judges only retain their positions “during good behavior” and it is up to Congress what that entails.

The proper solution for changing a court’s policy decision a majority of Americans do not agree with is to change the judges, not assail their character. Some justices are championed by some segments of our society and castigated by other segments. For example, Clarence Thomas is vilified by liberals who deified Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was abhorred by conservatives. Yet both Thomas and Ginsburg, and most other justices, have accepted expensive favors from numerous groups and individuals. Such “unethical” behavior only becomes an issue when raised in the context of which president nominated the justices.

Currently America accepts without demurral that justices Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Coney-Barrett, Alito and Thomas are “G.O.P.”/conservatives and Brown, Kagan and Sotomayor are Democrat/liberals. These designations are not even debated except when, rarely, Roberts wanders over to just left of center. In other words, America knows each justice was selected for her or his views in a political process and by politicians but without input from the general citizenry.

America does not need to engage in attempts to control judges by imposing ethical constraints. What we need is to subject all three equal and separate branches to the will of the citizenry whose lives are defined by the politicians of all three branches. As I have been saying publicly and in print for several years, elect all judges and establish term limits for them.

The best remedy for establishing ethical behavior is to elect judges of character who will choose the harder right over the easier wrong. Each law school needs to establish a judicial track that develops competent potential judges of good character. Then each state and the federal government should define by statute the requirements to run for a judicial office that has one set term. The president must be 35 years old (Article II of the Constitution). That seems reasonable to me. I suggest a clean felony record and 10 years of regular law practice might also be good. However, we should not have committees decide who is eligible to run for a judgeship. The American electorate should have that power after a few minimal qualifications. And a non-partisan election as part of the regular election cycle should suffice.

We can solve the judicial behavior problem best by impowering all voting Americans to choose all three branches of our government. If we are going to end our current highly political judicial selection process, let’s do so by replacing it with a system based on democracy, not cronyism.

 

Insomnia Revisited

by Leave a Comment

If you, as I, have trouble sleeping, this column should help. You may have read last week’s offering concerning the politicization of our federal courts. As warned in that article, today’s Gavel Gamut will further delve into MSNBC Alex Wagner’s suggestion that the legitimacy of America’s federal courts may be undermined by politics. If so, judicial independence and citizen confidence in our Judicial Branch may suffer.

Article III of the United States Constitution provides Justices of the Supreme Court and any lower federal court judges will be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The right for a citizen to vote for the President and the two senators from the citizen’s state of residence is the total opportunity Americans have to help select an entire branch of our three-branch government. Only the President and the one hundred senators have the constitutional right and opportunity to help select all federal judges. There are federal magistrates and specialty federal judges, such as bankruptcy referees, that are selected by either the sitting judges or special commissions. There are approximately 250,000,000 American citizens eighteen and over (eligible voters) who are cut out of all these selection procedures. So the power to select an entire branch of our government resides in 101 individuals and a few committees.

Further, when it comes to the Supreme Court, the Circuit Courts of Appeal and the District Courts, all these judges have life-time tenure and can only be removed involuntarily by impeachment. There are currently about 1,731 federal judges as appointed by a president. Since our nation’s founding in 1789, articles of impeachment have been brought against 15 federal judges of whom 8 were convicted. Therefore, the American people, except for a president and 100 senators, have no direct say in selecting or removing our federal judges who serve for life. Yet our Executive and Legislative branches are all subject to the will of the people and presidents may only serve 8 years. Our senators and congresspeople serve either 6 or 2-year terms and are subject to periodic popular, partisan elections.

Our system of federal judicial selection eliminates the populace from any control over an entire branch of our separate and equal three branch democracy. If there ever was justification for this extremely parochial and extremely partisan selection procedure for selecting federal judges, it has outlived its purposes. One hundred and one Americans should not have the power to exclude 250 million of their fellow citizens from helping to configure an entire branch of a democratic government.

A constitutional amendment to Article III may be needed if we are to ensure citizens have the option for input into selecting the extremely powerful federal judges who, already according to virtually every political pundit, legal theorist and media commentator, are the product of a shameful partisan vetting. But we have amended our Constitution 27 times for such things as the right to vote for Blacks and women, so we can do it for such an important right as selecting federal judges. Almost every federal judge whose decisions concern such general issues as guns, abortion, immigration, the environment, national defense, education, health care, public entitlements, infrastructure, interstate commerce, criminal justice, voting rights and water rights among many others, when the judge’s identity becomes public during a case, the judge’s name and his/her appointing president is mentioned. Every federal judge in every controversial case is identified as a Trump appointment, a Biden appointment, an Obama appointment or even a Bush appointment. Often the media will even identify the federal judge involved in a contentious case as a “Trump or Biden, etc.” judge. America no longer labors under a belief that federal judges are not the product of a highly partisan process. Therefore, why eliminate almost all Americans from such a transparent power struggle?

I suggest we amend the Constitution to establish a 10-year one-time term for all federal judges. Our existing federal judges who have already served 10 years would remain until the nearest federal election cycle which would not exceed 2 more years. We should pension out all sitting and future judges with their full salaries and benefits in return for them leaving the branch. Such pensions would cost us far less than we have spent in Ukraine or Iraq and we would be buying something of great value, the right to control our own judicial branch.

If we do not address our growing national internecine warfare over our highly political federal judicial selection process, we risk becoming like those countries where the people lose all confidence in the judicial process over which they have no control or even influence.

 

Undermining the Courts

by Leave a Comment

At 3:30 am on Thursday, April 20, 2023 I was watching cable news anchor Alex Wagner of MSNBC, who was analyzing the controversy involving two conflicting federal court rulings concerning the abortion drug Mifepristone. Wagner pointed out the federal district judge in Texas had been appointed by President Donald Trump. Ms. Wagner did not refer to the federal district judge in the state of Washington having been appointed by President Barack Obama. Wagner opined that these diametrically opposed court holdings and the U.S. Supreme Court’s attempts to reconcile them, “Could undermine the legitimacy of the courts.”

Naturally, Gentle Reader, your first thought is what was I doing watching television at three thirty in the morning and why would I watch MSNBC at any time? As to why I was awake, hey, I’m frequently responding to urges I never had when life was new. As to why MSNBC, I watch the news with my finger on the remote so I can attempt to outmaneuver the commercials. MSNBC happened to have the court story on instead of some offer of products guaranteed to enhance weight loss and other things, so I listened in.

It was Wagner’s views on the court system, not any exposition of Mifepristone, that piqued my attention. She said on national TV what may be a sub rosa thought with many Americans, “Why should we have confidence in the independence and reliability of our federal judges?” Are federal judges acting as Socrates demanded or are they deciding cases politically? Does a federal judge’s ruling depend more on the facts and the law or the judge’s political views and those of the president who appointed them?

In his trial before the Athenian judges, Socrates admonished his judges, “To do justice, not make a present of it.” In other words, a judge’s duty is not to repay his or her appointing politician, but:

“To hear courteously; to answer wisely; to consider soberly; and to decide impartially.”

Americans have for over 200 years supported the right of judges to be a separate and independent branch of our government. However, in our current national environment, many decisions from, especially the U.S. Supreme court, but more and more frequently also from the lower federal courts due to wide-ranging injunctions from one-person federal district judgeships, are seen by many Americans as political pronouncements.

Virtually every national debate about federal judicial decisions begins with a reference to the politics of who appointed the judge or judges and the history of the judge’s political leanings. It may be difficult to recall, but before our current turbulent social environment seldom was it alleged that, as justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said in dissent to the abortion decision of Dobbs vs. Jackson, “Today the proclivities of individuals (Supreme Court Justices) rule.”

When even one third of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court publicly and in print accuse the other two thirds members of deciding cases for political reasons, it sounds an alarm about an independent judiciary. An independent judiciary is essential to maintaining our democracy. As long ago as 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville noted, “In America, practically every political question eventually becomes a judicial one.” De Tocqueville meant that Americans have confidence in the impartiality of our courts so they take their disputes to courts to be resolved.

It would be a shame if now de Tocqueville might have to conclude, “In America, practically every federal judicial question becomes a political one.” Perhaps next week, if I am still awake at 3:30 am, we might further address these volatile issues including some suggested remedies.

The Mass Shooting Tocsin

by Leave a Comment

The definition of a “mass shooting” in the United States is a moving target based on the source of who describes an incident. While there is no neutrality on the issue of guns, the non-profit organization, Gun Violence Archive (GVA), defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are killed from gunshots. Applying these criteria, the GVA has published its figures for the period of January 01, 2023 to April 10, 2023 and compared it to the same time for 2014. In 2014 there were 59 incidents of mass shootings in the U.S. and in 2023 there were 146.

While those who announce the statistics may have motives to mischaracterize the figures, the statistics starkly establish an alarming trend upward. In a country of 330 million people where more people commit suicide with guns than commit mass shootings, and more than 30,000 die in vehicle accidents each year, it may appear that mass shootings in America are not out of control. But the tocsin should sound to alert us to a possible greater danger of a change in our national character.

It is not the inanimate objects of firearms that may be our greater concern but the animus we feel for one another. The most significant issue we should concentrate on is not the number of guns in our country nor who can access them, although these are important. What may be in play is why are we as a people engendering a degree of nihilism in some members of our society that so devalues oneself and others that “death by cop” and the deaths of unknown others is preferable to living.

I own guns, have since I was a boy. We had long guns in the pantry right next to our family’s dining table. There were no locked gun cabinets and no need for one. If I wanted to go hunting, I pulled back the curtain on the pantry, grabbed one of the guns and went hunting. Every boy and man I knew owned or had access to guns. Guns were not a means to achieve attention. We knew approval came from school and work and how we treated others, disapproval too. National attention was not on our radar but if it had been we knew it would need to come from helping others not indiscriminately murdering them. Our family was like most others and if we ever achieved any news media notoriety it was for some small contribution to local culture. It did not compute for most people that fame and infamy were equally desirable as long as they spelled the names right. So, what happened? What went wrong and how can we fix it?

The news media is not to blame for fostering a climate of “If it bleeds, it leads.” As a newspaper columnist for 33 years, I am a member of the media and I deny responsibility for anyone else’s behavior. I have enough to do being responsible for my own. No, the media is simply following the demands and interests of the American public. Movies, songs, video games and television shows that garner ticket sales and awards for ad nauseam renditions of pornography and senseless violence are the harbingers of what news sources people will pay attention to. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and others are in business. They follow the demographics and those demographics are that what sells is the denigration of our politicians and blood from our citizens. What does not sell is any mention of good character and acts of kindness.

So, what does a disaffected, depressed, detached and marginal person conclude from the media? If one wants to matter, he or she must denigrate others or spill the blood of innocent strangers and themselves. I realize we will not return to the Andy Griffith Show and Walter Cronkite country we transitioned out of when all politics and all news was local. However, we can reevaluate how we report, not comment, on people with whom we disagree or, perhaps, even despise. The facts should be enough. Adjectives as to a politician’s motives should be eschewed. If the object of a news story is wrong, the public can reach that conclusion without some news anchor repeatedly claiming, “That’s a lie!” A lie requires intent and how does the news anchor know one’s intent. It should be sufficient to state the evidence and leave it up to the viewer or reader to decide if it is a lie or a mistake or even a difference of opinion.

A gradual turning away from a culture where, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”, might be a good place to start. Or, if not Shakespeare, how about our mothers’ advice, “If we can’t say something nice about someone, don’t say anything at all?”

I get it that this approach might take years to help assuage our epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings. But I ask you, Gentle Reader, do you think the problem will be solved by continuing to vilify everyone we disagree with? Maybe, at least, respectfully hearing out opposing views before we label someone a crook or a liar might pour oil on troubled waters and help reduce our national tendency to assassinate character. Such an approach of just reporting the news may tend to discourage people teetering on the edge from taking up arms and actually assassinating innocent people.

%d bloggers like this: