Freedom From Ideological Tyranny 626.2
The Fourth of July should be more than a birthday celebration marked by fireworks. It’s a time to appreciate and honor the great democracy our forefathers created, including a profoundly wise system of Constitutional checks and balances.
Conflicting views of rights and responsibilities are unavoidable, but passionate disagreement and debate should strengthen rather than undermine our national commitment to peacefully and respectfully resolving differences. It doesn’t serve us well when our most cherished principles are assaulted under the banner of what some call a “cultural war.”
The process of refining our definition of liberty in a manner that balances personal freedoms against various perspectives of a good society is continuous and endless. Every decade has seen momentous conflicts involving civil and religious rights, including prohibition, polygamy, pornography, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, and homosexuality. In each case, court decisions pleased some and infuriated others.
I disagree with many of the Supreme Court’s majority decisions. Still, it’s unwise and unpatriotic to attack the court system and vilify judges when disagreeing with a judgment. And it’s arrogant to equate the intensity of one’s convictions with the likelihood that one is right.
The issues that reach the Supreme Court are vital. But it’s vastly more important that we have and support a method of peacefully and thoughtfully resolving ideological rifts that threaten our ability to live together in respectful peace.
If we lose confidence in the wisdom or integrity of the judicial process and try to rig it so we’ll get the answers we want, we’ll all someday find ourselves on the other side of ideological tyranny.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
What do you think of this commentary?
Subscribe
Comments
"Still, it’s unwise and unpatriotic to attack the court system and vilify judges when disagreeing with a judgment."
As a rule, I tend to agree. I say this as a former practicing attorney who now teaches philosophy of law and ethics. But I often use the case of Bush v. Gore in my classes as an illustration of how raw politics can overcome all of the expectations of the Court with its supposed impartiality. A Supreme Court case that in its own text says it can never be used as a precedent in any other case reveals its lack of respectability. By definition that would extend to the justices who created such a blatantly political decision.
While I believe we must insist upon ideological independence, to the degree that is possible with human institutions and the integrity of the courts, we cannot give passes to justices on those occasions when they allow politics and ideology to render disservice to the country.
Posted by: Harry Coverston | July 15, 2009 5:06 AM