James M. Redwine

William Shakespeare

The Coliseum Revisited

by Leave a Comment

Peg & Jim Redwine at the Coliseum

 

If CNN, MSNBC and FOX News were covering the entertainments in the Roman Coliseum in the First Century they would have been exhorting the lions. Of course, the reason for this is the ratings would suffer if they sided with the humans. The public demands spectacle, not fairness.

Or as Mark Twain opined: “One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives”. Pudd’nhead Wilson, Chapter VII.

In William Shakespeare’s Othello, Act 3, scene 3, Iago complains: “Who steals my purse steals trash …[But] who filches from me my good name robs me of that which (does not) enrich him [but] makes me poor indeed”.

Our current spectacle steals from both accused and accuser equally. When it comes time to clear the floor of the Congressional Coliseum no one will remain unscathed and we will all be poorer. Rome today is a decaying tourist amusement. The days of roads, aqueducts, legal systems and Pax Romana declined with the declining investment of the citizenry in self-government. Today we would have to include the national media in this equation.

It is not that we do not know how to reasonably go about choosing our leaders such as presidents, legislators and supreme court justices, it is that it is a lot more fun to watch others being ripped apart than to engage in rational debate. Bring on the lions, we are bored with this democracy thing!

Feet of Clay

by Leave a Comment

Picture by Peg Redwine

William Shakespeare had Marc Antony preach these words at Julius Caesar’s funeral:

“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

Act III, Scene 2

Antony went on to list Caesar’s accomplishments in addition to his being ambitious. There was some good, some bad. Perhaps the citizens of Rome should have erected a partial statue of Caesar honoring just the good parts.

This could be a solution to our current controversy over monuments to historic figures. A committee could be composed of people who admire the works of a now dead leader and those who find the figure’s behavior flawed. A few examples might be helpful.

George Washington survived Valley Forge, presided over the Constitutional Convention and refused the opportunity to be named an emperor. On the other hand he owned hundreds of slaves and helped enshrine slavery into our legal system. The Committee might consider cutting the Washington Monument in half.

Thomas Jefferson was responsible for the Bill of Rights that guaranteed individual liberty but only to twenty-one year old white males. He also owned slaves and had children by one of them. Today such an employer/subject relationship would result in severe censure. Perhaps the Committee might recommend the Jefferson Memorial be closed every other week.

As we search for unblemished heroes to honor we could consider Abraham Lincoln who issued the Emancipation Proclamation. However, he at first averred slavery would be preferable to the disintegration of the Union and the Proclamation did not free all slaves just those in the states of the Confederacy. The Committee could maybe have a disclaimer added as a placard around his statue’s neck.

Andrew Jackson committed adultery, captured Seminole Indians under a flag of truce and as president created The Trail of Tears. On the other hand, he was a courageous and victorious military leader. A short bronze bust could replace his heroic sized statue.

As for Mount Rushmore the Committee would have to remove at least 3 of the 4 figures. Of course, Teddy Roosevelt had a penchant for shooting animals which might upset the ASPCA; so all 4 might have to be erased.

Right here in Posey County, Indiana we have a dilemma about what to do with our most famous citizen. Alvin Peterson Hovey was once Posey Circuit Court Judge, a Civil War general for the Union and our only governor. Unfortunately, he also was instrumental in helping to cover up the murders of seven Black men in October 1878. One of those Black men was shot and stuffed into a hollow tree on a farm owned by Hovey. Will the Committee have to remove the glowing patina from Hovey’s bronze in the Indiana State House?

One might look to Jesus as the paragon of virtue but even he got angry and threw the moneychangers out of the temple. He, also, voiced his hope that the cup of his great travail might pass from him. On the other hand, apparently no one knows what Jesus looked like unless one believes the Shroud of Turin is a clue. I guess the Committee would not be able to find any statues of Jesus to modify.

It appears that history has not provided us with any perfect examples to honor. Maybe the Committee will have to suggest that all statues be modified by substituting feet of clay.

Picture by Peg Redwine

Judges and Politics

by Leave a Comment

In 2000 the Florida Supreme Court gave the presidency to Democrat Al Gore. Five judges on the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Florida court and gave the presidency to Republican George W. Bush.

Bush won by two electoral votes. Gore barely won the popular vote. Three of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who dissented, John Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote:

“Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

Judges may make mistakes. Judges may be ignorant or lazy or may have any number of faults. The one characteristic judges must not have is a public perception of prejudice for or against persons or beliefs.

The only thing judges must bring to their role in our government is the ability to engender public confidence in the integrity of their decisions. We may, and I often do, disagree with judicial decisions (by other judges of course). However, if we have confidence the judges acted impartially, we can accept even bad rulings and move on.

That is why Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which all judges should follow requires:

“A Judge or candidate for Judicial Office Shall not Engage in Political or Campaign Activity that is Inconsistent with the Independence, Integrity, or Impartiality of the Judiciary.”

The Code also prohibits a judge from publicly, e.g. in a newspaper column, endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office.

These ethical proscriptions come to mind as I am currently engaged in helping to teach an internet course to judges for the National Judicial College. Judges from several states are participating as students or faculty. As with much of the judicial education in which I have been involved, in this course there is a great deal of side banter about many topics. In this current presidential campaign cycle politics is unavoidable. But unlike non-judicial conversations where my friends and family do not hesitate to state that one candidate is less than desired while the other must be elected, with judges I am reminded of the attitude Romeo’s friend, Mercutio had.

You may recall that in William Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet the two families, Romeo’s Montagues and Juliet’s Capulets, were constantly feuding. In Act III, scene 1 Mercutio is stabbed by Juliet’s relative, Tybalt. As Mercutio lies dying he curses both sides by calling for, “A plague on both of your houses”. That pretty well sums up the ethical positions of my judicial colleagues.