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 constitutionalist 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.
Some say, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." In verbiage, meanings can sometimes change, not just by what we say or don't say, but how we say it. A line can be drawn between us pro death penalty folks. That line divides us into the two camps of our driving motivations, respectively, either revenge or justice. I'm on the justice side, so my preferred defining premise is instead: "The punishment should fit the crime." In its decision, the Supreme Court apparently thought so too, as expressed by Justice Kennedy, who has pretty much replaced former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as the Court's unofficial but decisive "swing" voter.
Justice Kennedy cited that basically only murder justifies the death penalty. I'm not a real big fan of Justice Kennedy. I'm more of a "Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito" kind of guy, but in this decision, Justice Kennedy and I agree, and for the same reason.
Justice Kennedy invoked the 8th Amendment, specifically with regard to "cruel and unusual punishment." The child in question was raped, not murdered. Some of the enraged conservative pundits have noted that the victim, like many rape victims, will most likely be emotionally scarred for life from this crime. In fact, a doctor who treated the child in this incident said that he had never before seen such profoundly grisly trauma inflicted upon a child in his years of practice. Indeed, it is tragically a pretty safe bet that this child will be emotionally traumatized by this needless and barbaric event for the rest of her life to whatever degree. Being that the child's life will now presumably be so affected, thus her assailant's life should also be significantly impacted, by a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, in other words, "death for death, and life for life." Like it or not, that is true justice, and that is what are courts are for. The Supreme Court did its job. For those still hoping for revenge, trust me, you most likely won't be disappointed. If this guy has the rest of his life to serve in prison as a child rapist, at some point, one or more of his fellow inmates will enact your much-coveted revenge upon him at the very first chance, and every subsequent chance they get.
Like I said, the system isn't perfect. Nevertheless, revenge is for anarchists, and justice is for a civilized society. Which label best befits us as a nation? That's a no-brainer, but if you disagree, feel free to hop a plane to the land of the despotic regime of your fancy. You have plenty of such choices around the globe. And when you disembark from the plane and into the country where revenge trumps justice, I wish you good luck. You'll need it.
"Don't Infringe On Me!"
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
(2nd Amendment, United States Constitution)
A friend once gave me a bumper sticker that aptly read, "When the 2nd Amendment ends, the 2nd Revolution begins." I think a similar notion must have been in the mind of radio talk show host, Michael Savage, who opined his belief that the Supreme Court, or as I recall, more specifically, Justice Kennedy (again), may have had reflected upon this prophecy, be it accurate or not, when the Court overturned the Washington D.C. municipal ban against handgun ownership. Ironically, our nations capital has simultaneously and traditionally held the sordid distinctions of being at or near the top of the list of having the nation's toughest gun laws and the nation's highest homicide rates. There is, after all, only so much that even ordinarily reasonable, civilized, decent, law-abiding people can tolerate and should be expected to tolerate. Before writing his classic and self-explanatory book, "More Guns, Les Crime," Professor John Lott was admittedly not a real big proponent of easy access to guns for the citizenry, but his objective study of the statistical facts and his own personal integrity led him to change his mind. Our nation has a well steeped tradition of aggressively retaliating against tyranny, as well illustrated by at least one version of the famous "Gadsden flag," from the colonial era, depicting a rattlesnake with 13 rattles, representing the original 13 colonies, with a caption underneath that read (verbatim), "Don't Tread On Me."
Constitutional pundit and Judge Andrew Napolitano, in a recent on-air interview with New York talk radio host, Steve Malzberg, agreed with the Court's ruling, emphasizing the codicil of the 2nd Amendment which simply states, ".... shall not be infringed." Going back to the fact that our rights are God-given, and only Constitution-articulated, who then, do the municipal leaders of Washington D.C., or for that matter, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or state leaders in places like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, etc., think they are in usurping our God-given inalienable rights that Declaration of Independence cites, and our Constitution plainly states "shall not be infringed"? Such is the crossing of the fine line from arrogance to tyranny, and in both cases, while being conceivably rooted in abject ignorance.
God and Professor John Lott aside, the Supreme Court previously ruled some years back that the role of our police is not to protect every individual citizen, but society collectively. This ruling was one clearly based in common sense, if not sound law. It is logistically impossible and unrealistic to expect every cop to be on every street corner, and in front of every standing residential and commercial building to protect every individual citizen. Whether in an urban, suburban, or rural setting, if dialing 911 procures arrival of police within about five minutes for you, you're doing pretty well, but in many cases, such is not the case, and even if it is, a lot can happen in five minutes. I personally know of one actual case in which a single mother in a Connecticut suburb called 911 in the middle of the night simply because she originally heard a possible trespasser in her yard outside. Police arrived on scene six minutes later, and arrested her trespasser, now a burglar and rapist, at gunpoint while he was in the act of raping the woman in her bedroom with her infant nearby. In another incident, a woman called police in a domestic dispute in a rural Connecticut town because her enraged ex-beau was literally ramming her locked house with his pick-up truck in an attempt to get to her inside. Police arrived thirty minutes later, long after the perpetrator cooled off, tired of his antics, and finally drove his heavily damaged truck away. A police department in a certain Connecticut city, which I will not name, reputedly has or had the policy of announcing the call signal, "red city" over the radio from its dispatch center. That code signals to the cops on the street not to get into any spot they can't get out of, because there are now numerous stacked and unanswered calls for police assistance, including high priority emergencies, and every car in every sector in the city is already tied up on other calls and unable to respond anywhere else. If police cannot protect us as individuals (and they can't), and if they are not even expected to (and they're not), then by what justification does any pipsqueak local or state bureaucrat anywhere in this nation dare so oppress a free American citizen from not only his or her right, but from his nor her duty to protect his or her self, family, and/or home or place of business? This is still, and so far, the United States of America! Don't anyone dare "infringe" upon my rights, and don't even think of "treading" on me at all! And by the way, I have lots of company in that mindset throughout the country.
The usual liberal dissenters to the 2nd Amendment erroneously, and in typical fashion, as per their distorted playbook, fall back on the mention of "militia," which they attribute to guns only being available for military use. But "militia," by definition refers to a specifically civilian organization of troops, distinct from regular military troops. The verbiage of the amendment then reverts back to the reference of "the people," in much the same way that it does for the protection of "the state," citizens are not only allowed, but even expected to be armed, such as in far away places like Switzerland and Israel, and even less known places closer to home, like the American city of Kennesaw, Georgia.
Liberals also shriek at the notion of citizens being armed to any degree (unless it's hypocritically for the liberals themselves, like US Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), or for the bodyguards of liberals like actress Rosie O'Donnell), and even cite, sometimes even correctly, that some citizens are even better armed than the police. As Judge Napolitano correctly pointed out, such was the very intent of our forefathers. Historically in coup de tats around the globe, the first thing governments do is grab all the guns from the citizenry. (Which, by the way, is typically the next step right after "gun registration," hint, hint...!) Our 2nd Amendment is a "check and balance," as is many aspects of our government, and as such, one that theoretically and intentionally guarantees the freedom of the people from a tyrannical government.
Until the Court's ruling, the city of Washington, D.C., was operating in tyrannical fashion by denying this fundamental right to its citizens. The 2nd Amendment, after all, is the right that actually protects all our other rights. The Court's ruling in this case was clearly just. Just imagine the tragic irony that one of our most fundamental and significant rights was being denied by an oppressive and Draconian regime in the very capital of the freest nation on Earth. Big time kudos to the Court on this one. Predictions are now being made that this ruling will have a rapid and wide impact on loosening up similarly oppressive gun laws in other cities and states throughout the country that are currently dominated by bureaucrats of like mindset of the Commissars of the District of Columbia. Hopefully, those predictions will soon come true, and hopefully a crucial lesson in civics and liberty will thus be finally and permanently learned by all. (Hey, I said I was "hopeful"; I never said I wasn't "skeptical," but that's OK. One fight at a time.)
Having now made its usual dramatic and trademark impact on American life and public controversy, from headlines to radio waves, to TV and computer screens, to barber and beauty shops, and to diner and tavern stools, the Supreme Court, agree or disagree, will now or soon go into what it calls "summer recess," which, I believe, lasts until roughly October. (I guess that must be what some people might call "Indian" Summer Recess!) While the turbulent ripples of this latest flurry of decisions continues to stir, we can most likely take heart that for better or for worse, there was one recent Supreme Court decision that probably was not "5-4," in nature, but unanimous, and that was for the justices to embark on their much cherished annual vacation, or in the Court's parlance, "summer recess," despite what the "calendar" says outside of the courtroom.
And despite what the lyrics from a classic song from the 60's once said, "See you in October." Until then, rest well, fellows.
Oh yeah, (Sigh!).... you too, Ruth.
Doug Wrenn
