"Supreme" Rulings? by Doug Wrenn

"Supreme" Rulings?

By Doug Wrenn

June 30, 2008

In a recent debate I had with a Democrat sympathizer, she bad-mouthed Vice President Cheney as "arrogant." I asked why. She replied that in a recent interview, someone mentioned to the Vice President that many Americans are opposed to the Iraq War. Vice President Cheney allegedly responded, "So?"

It is impossible to please all of the people all of the time, and public officials should not even attempt to do so. Being right is not necessarily and should not necessarily be synonymous with being popular. Ideally and theoretically, our public officials in our representative republic should conduct themselves, make decisions, and formulate policy based on the rule of law, and not mob rule. Pure democracy is actually far from "pure."

More specifically, our courts, and particularly our so-called "Supreme" Court should hold themselves to a higher standard than John and Mary Q. Public. And once again, both ideally, as well as theoretically, that is why we pay them the so-called "big bucks."

In typical fashion, the Supremes stirred the pot all month long, with a flurry of the usual "5-4" decisions on the Guantanamo Bay detainees, capital punishment for child rapists and the Washington D.C. municipal gun ban. And, as usual, not everybody was happy, and contrary to popular belief, nobody says everybody has to be happy.

The courts, and this court in particular, are necessary to preserve a civilized society. Unlike John and Mary Q. Public, our judges and justices do not have the luxury of allowing emotion to rule over logic, and thank God for that. That all said, as an unabashed conservative, I found myself pretty "5-4" on the courts three contentious decisions this month, but considering that I proudly consider myself a constructionist before a conservative, maybe that's a good thing. Maybe you don't agree with me. Then again, you don't have to.

"The Get Outta Gitmo Free Card"

Some words and phrases automatically invoke spontaneous and involuntary emotions and reactions. Simply utter the brand "Yugo" to many gearheads old enough to remember that miniature debacle of an automobile and watch them bend over doing a belly laugh. In a similar manner, say "September 11th" to many, if not most Americans, and don't be surprised to see their eyes well up with tears, their fists clench, or maybe both. Ask many people to associate a word with peanut butter, and they will inevitably answer "jelly" without hesitation. Say Guantanamo Bay to many folks, and September 11th will vividly come to mind. Therein lies the rub.

The Court ruled that the Guantanamo Bay (AKA: "Gitmo") detainees may be allowed civilian court trials as opposed to military tribunals, which are less bogged down with less legalistic loophole hoopla. A military tribunal, for right or for wrong, was the reason why the Lincoln assassination conspirators were so quickly tried and convicted.

The Bush administration has pretty much had its way with the Gitmo detainees, denying them civilian trials because they are considered enemy combatants, while dismissing certain applications of the Geneva Convention, such as contentious methods of alleged torture on the basis that these enemy combatants were not wearing uniforms and in some cases, not on a battlefield. (Although, in several other examples, the detainees, contrary to popular belief, have also been coddled with some extraordinary perks.) OK, so which is it? Are the detainees soldiers or spies? The government, to coin the old adage, has pretty much had its cake and ate it too.

I have heard the argument that our soldiers, as soldiers, are not subject to civilian rule if they break military law. True enough, but the Court must operate from documented references as well as tradition. The 5th and 6th amendments of the Constitution, in addressing legal rights of defendants, address the defendants as "persons" and "the accused." In that sense, the detainees don't even have to be citizens to have rights. Our Constitution only articulates rights. As cited in our Declaration of Independence, our inalienable rights, as we rightfully believe in our Judeo-Christian based nation of laws, come from God. Perhaps the jurisdiction of where our accused military personnel are tried should also be looked at again, but that is the job of the Congress, or possibly even a Constitutional Convention, but not the Supreme Court. The Judicial Branch merely interprets and applies law created by the Legislative Branch.

The Court is bound to interpret existing law, such as it is. Given that context, the Gitmos do have a right to habeas corpus, and yes, I believe our troops also do as well. The situation may not be perfect, but it's the hand that was dealt to us by our forefathers, and law must trump emotion, no matter how tough it understandably is to swallow.

Do I believe that this decision further endangers us? Absolutely, and in that sense, I am as gravely concerned as anyone else for our safety and security, but the Supreme Court did its job, and now the Congress must do its job, and hopefully, the right way.

I emphasize "the right way" because in 2006, the Congress passed a bill, signed into law by President Bush, that claimed that the Gitmos were not entitled to civilian court rule because they were not on US soil. That so-called law was utter nonsense. Any US military base or embassy in any nation on Earth is considered US soil. And as this ruling has shown, obviously, the Supreme Court thinks so, too.

I don't like the outcome either, but given the scope by which the Court had to make this decision, I agree with it. It is what it is.

"Spare The Chair, But Throw Away The Key"

The Supreme Court also ruled that child rapists cannot be given the death penalty. This case was brought before the Court based on the appeal of a Louisiana man, convicted of raping his 8-year old stepdaughter.

I came across a local newspaper article today about a local motorcycle group that now rallies against child abuse. A friend of mine always says that there is a group or association for every imaginable cause or endeavor imaginable. Once again, he is proven correct. My wife sarcastically quipped, "Who is actually for child abuse?" Without missing a beat, I responded, "NAMBLA and the ACLU." (If you don't know what those acronyms stand for and you're dying to know, then look them up for yourself. This is my column and I won't give either group any further recognition, let alone the time of day!)

Despite the radically-leftist leanings of at least one Justice, that being of the Clinton appointee, and former ACLU lawyer, Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, who once reputedly favored co-ed prisons, legalizing prostitution and lowering the age of sexual consent to a whopping age of twelve, I still find myself agreeing with the decision of the Court, including Justice Ginsburg in this rightfully emotionally charged case. Again, logic must trump emotion, even if that does mean siding with an old ACLU and Clinton ally.

The only act more heinous and unconscionable that comes to my mind than hurting a child is a family member, be he or she biological, or "step," hurting a child. If you're like me, you would probably love ten minutes alone in a locked room with this filthy mutant that raped his 8-year-old stepdaughter to apply a little good, old-fashioned street justice. And again, therein lies the rub. The fact of the matter is that while "good," old-fashioned street justice might feel "good," there is nothing at all good about it in a civilized society. While we homosapiens all walk erect, have thumbs instead of tails, can talk and (supposedly) reason intelligently, there is still a little bit of "animal" left in all of us. Actually, in that sense, we are probably even worse than animals. Animals strike to protect themselves. We strike, not just to protect ourselves, but also to seek revenge. To a small degree, that whole "reason" thing isn't all it's cracked up to be. Enter our Judicial Branch of government.

There are those who say that capital punishment is about revenge. I'm sure with some people, it is, especially those who themselves have been horrifically victimized by criminals or have had loved ones who were so victimized. But there is a difference between justice and revenge. Revenge is simply about gratifying the carnal instinct and willfully abandoning what our intellect and ability to reason are rightfully for. Justice is to institutionalize consistent standards to hopefully deter those who contemplate negative behavior by making an example of those who have already acted on that same contemplation. The vast majority of prison inmates are recidivists. And our justice system, while the best in the world, is still not infallible. It has allowed predators back on the streets to again prey on the vulnerable, and in some cases, to even effect murderous revenge on plaintiffs and witnesses who testified against them in court. I have worked in the criminal justice system. I know how flawed it is. My Catholic faith, contrary to popular belief, does allow for capital punishment, but only in situations in which there is no better alternative to safeguard society, and that point is the focal point of the pro vs. con debate on the death penalty, at least for me. I am for capital punishment, albeit with chagrin. I would love to oppose it, but until such time that I see the vulnerable element of our society truly protected from the predatory element, I'm not changing my stance on this issue any time soon, and if I am wrong, may God (please) have mercy on my soul.

Continued on next page (click here)